Apostasy

[Nooristan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_oKXh2oy8E

Salamolaikom,AbuZubair or any of the other knowledgeable muslim's,can you please veiw the above clip on apostasy,I know this brother personally and would like to advice him,he is erring a lot on this video and misunderstanding ayat and hadeeth,I am not quite sure where his Islam is at in terms of creed,hence why I am asking for a wee bit of help on this,jzk in advance.

[JayshAllah]

Shaykh Yousuf Qaradawi as well as scholars from Al-Azhar University do not agree with the death penalty for what they term Minor Apostasy.

[Abu wakee]

Shaykh Yousuf Qaradawi as well as scholars from Al-Azhar University do not agree with the death penalty for what they term Minor Apostasy.

This is not true. Shaykh Qardawi does not say that. What he actually said is; people who are guilty of minor apostacy are given a 'grace period' to repent. However, there's a minority opinion which says they don't have to be killed even if they don't repent in that period. They can be imprisoned instead.

Don't twist what he said.

[Umm]

The Qur’an is clear regarding the apostate:

"They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another). So take not Auliya' (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allah (to Muhammad ). But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold) of them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Auliya' (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them." [Surah Nisa verse 89]

There are several ahadith in Bukhari too:

Volume 9, Book 83, Number 37:

Narrated Abu Qilaba: ...I said, "By Allah, Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate." Then the people said, "Didn't Anas bin Malik narrate that Allah's Apostle cut off the hands of the thieves, branded their eyes and then, threw them in the sun?" I said, "I shall tell you the narration of Anas. Anas said: "Eight persons from the tribe of 'Ukl came to Allah's Apostle and gave the Pledge of allegiance for Islam (became Muslim). The climate of the place (Medina) did not suit them, so they became sick and complained about that to Allah's Apostle. He said (to them ), "Won't you go out with the shepherd of our camels and drink of the camels' milk and urine (as medicine)?" They said, "Yes." So they went out and drank the camels' milk and urine, and after they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of Allah's Apostle and took away all the camels. This news reached Allah's Apostle , so he sent (men) to follow their traces and they were captured and brought (to the Prophet). He then ordered to cut their hands and feet, and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron, and then he threw them in the sun till they died." I said, "What can be worse than what those people did? They deserted Islam, committed murder and theft."

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:

Narrated Ikrima:

Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Volume 9, Book 84, Number 58:

Narrated Abu Burda:

Abu Musa said, "... The Prophet then sent Mu'adh bin Jabal after him and when Mu'adh reached him, he spread out a cushion for him and requested him to get down (and sit on the cushion). Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. A...'"

He rejects hadiths on the death penalty for apostasy, as they are "ahad hadiths"?!

He explains away the hadith below as having the death penalty, as it includes treason against the state, and not just apostasy alone, quoting “Anyone who leaves his religion and splits away from the jama’at, kil him..”

The hadith "whoever changes his religion, kill him" he boldly claims this could refer to anyone, even a jew or christian leaving their religion?! Since when is a christian or jew who changes their religion killed?

"Every single instance of apostasy at the time of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) involved treason..." he said. He shows a lack of understanding that apostasy is worse than treason. And anyway, not every apostate went on to fight against the State, as a part of a political conspiracy as he claims.

I wonder if this guy is a HT, as conspiracies against eh state are most serious than apostasy, and he rejects ahad hadith?

Volume 9, Book 89, Number 271:

Narrated Abu Musa:

A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu'adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle.

The above hadith doesn't mention treason at all.


He quotes ayaat (2:256, 10:99, 15:2-3 and 18:29. Every one of these references refers to "no compulsion in religion" i.e. not forcing someone to convert. It doesn't say anything about the murtad.

He cites the following ayah as proof that a person can apostate as many times as they wish, without the death penalty:

137. Verily, those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe (again), and (again) disbelieve, and go on increasing in disbelief; Allah will not forgive them, nor guide them on the (Right) Way.

He claims that they following ayah (5:54, 13:40, 2:217, 5:49, 3:85, 3:90, 47:34 and 16:106-109] which refer to the disbelievers (NOT apostates) being punished in the akhirah, is proof that they have no death penalty in this life. Not one of these ayaat deal with the apostate! Some are even general ayaat, that are irrelevant to his argument. e.g.

" Whether We show you (O Muhammad ) part of what We have promised them or cause you to die, your duty is only to convey (the Message) and on Us is the reckoning." [13:40]

He also cites ayah trying to prove his claim that apostasy and freedom of religion is tolerated:

24:54, 42:6, 2:108, 3:20, 5:3 and 27: 92

Look at 5:3 alone:

".. This day, those who disbelieved have given up all hope of your religion, so fear them not, but fear Me. This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion." Where does it support his false claims?

He fails to understand the difference between:
1) The difference between a kaafir being free to stay upon their misguidance, and

2) the one who accepts Islam and then apostates

3) General ayah saying that whoever doesn't accept Islam will be punished in the akhirah, does not mean that the apostate is not killed.

4) A general ayah saying that the apostate is punished in the akhirah, doesn't negate the fact that they have a punishment in the dhunia too.

[Umm]

Why death is the punishment for Apostasy

Question:
Alslamualik

This question has bees asked several time from non-Muslims and I want to find an answer: Why When the Muslim convert to another religion(Murtad) he/she should be killed?


Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

Your question may be answered by the following points:

(1) This is the ruling of Allaah and His Messenger, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him." (reported by al-Bukhaari, al-Fath, no. 3017).

(2) The one who has known the religion which Allaah revealed, entered it and practised it, then rejected it, despised it and left it, is a person who does not deserve to live on the earth of Allaah and eat from the provision of Allaah.

(3) By leaving Islaam, the apostate opens the way for everyone who wants to leave the faith, thus spreading apostasy and encouraging it.

(4) The apostate is not to be killed without warning. Even though his crime is so great, he is given a last chance, a respite of three days in which to repent. If he repents, he will be left alone; if he does not repent, then he will be killed.

(5) If the punishment for murder and espionage (also known as high treason) is death, then what should be the punishment for the one who disbelieves in the Lord of mankind and despises and rejects His religion? Is espionage or shedding blood worse than leaving the religion of the Lord of mankind and rejecting it?

(6) None of those who bleat about personal freedom and freedom of belief would put up with a neighbour’s child hitting their child or justify this as "personal freedom," so how can they justify leaving the true religion and rejecting the sharee’ah which Allaah revealed to teach mankind about His unity and bring justice and fairness to all?

We ask Allaah for safety and health. May Allaah bless our Prophet Muhammad.

Islam QA (http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=811&ln=eng)

[Abuz Zubair]

This is not true. Shaykh Qardawi does not say that. What he actually said is; people who are guilty of minor apostacy are given a 'grace period' to repent. However, there's a minority opinion which says they don't have to be killed even if they don't repent in that period. They can be imprisoned instead.

Don't twist what he said.
No need to twist his views. His views and his Ikhwani modernist colleagues are quite well known for their views on apostasy.

[Um Abdullah M.]

Don't twist what he said.

akhi, please have husn dhan of your brothers and sisters.
maybe that is what he understood or read, not that he intentionally twisted it.

so just explain without accusations.

[Abu wakee]

No need to twist his views. His views and his Ikhwani modernist colleagues are quite well known for their views on apostasy.

http://www.islamonline.net/English/contemporary/2006/04/article01c.shtml

Doesn't seem modernist to me.

[Abuz Zubair]

http://www.islamonline.net/English/contemporary/2006/04/article01c.shtml

Doesn't seem modernist to me.
He does to me:

Besides, Islam does not call for the execution of apostates who do not proclaim their apostasy or call for it. Rather, it leaves the punishment for the hereafter if they die in the state of apostasy, as Almighty Allah says, [And if any of you turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the hereafter; they will be companions of the fire and will abide therein.](Al-Baqarah 2:217). However, this type of apostate may receive a discretionary punishment in this world.

[Abu wakee]

He does to me:

Besides, Islam does not call for the execution of apostates who do not proclaim their apostasy or call for it. Rather, it leaves the punishment for the hereafter if they die in the state of apostasy, as Almighty Allah says, [And if any of you turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the hereafter; they will be companions of the fire and will abide therein.](Al-Baqarah 2:217). However, this type of apostate may receive a discretionary punishment in this world.


Well, how can you punish them, if they don't say explicitly that they apostacized?

[Abuz Zubair]

Well, how can you punish them, if they don't say explicitly that they apostacized?
Easy...

The one who admits he practises magic, or believes that the world is eternal, or says that 'I am God and God is me', or prays to other than God, is guilty of apostasy. He doesn't have to appear on a radio show to officially announce his apostasy to the nation.

The one who does not ever commit an act of kufr, or even utter a word of kufr is not an apostate to begin with :)

[1mran]

Well, how can you punish them, if they don't say explicitly that they apostacized?

various ways,

some of them stop praying and start causing a fitnah by asking or telling others not to pray either.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said about this matter, this will dispel any confusion.

He (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

In the case of one who believes that prayer is obligatory yet still persists in not praying, the fuqahaa’ who have studied the matter in detail mentioned a number of points:

The first of them is this point, which was stated by the majority of them, Maalik, Al-Shaafa’i and Ahmad: if a person persists until he is killed, is he killed as a kaafir and an apostate, or as a sinful Muslim like other sinful Muslims, as stated in the two well-known views reported from Ahmad? Such detailed discussion was not reported from the Sahaabah, and is excessive and futile.

If the person believes in his heart that prayer is obligatory, this will not allow him to persist in not doing it until he is executed. Such a thing is not known among the sons of Adam, and has never happened in Islam. It is unheard of for a person to believe that it is obligatory and to be told, “If you do not pray we will execute you” and then to persist in not doing it even though he believes it is obligatory. This has never happened in Islam.

When a person refrains from praying until he is executed, he does not really believe in his heart that it is obligatory and was not doing it, so he is a kaafir, according to the consensus of the Muslims, as it was stated in many reports that the Sahaabah would consider such a person to be a kaafir. This is also indicated by the saheeh texts, such as the ahadeeth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him):

“Nothing stands between a person and Kufr except his giving up prayer” (narrated by Muslim).

“The covenant that separates us from them is prayer, and whoever gives up prayer has become a kaafir.”

‘Abd-Allaah ibn Shaqeeq said: “The companions of Muhammad did not think that giving up any deed would make a person a kaafir – apart from giving up prayer.”

Whoever persists in not praying and never prostrated to Allaah at all until he dies, can never be a Muslim who believes that prayer is obligatory. Believing that it is obligatory and that the person who does not do it deserves to be executed is sufficient motive to make a person do it, for if a person has the motive and ability to do something, it should be done. If he is able to do it but he never does it, this indicates that the motive is not present in his case.

(Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 22/47-49)

[Abu wakee]

Easy...

The one who admits he practises magic, or believes that the world is eternal, or says that 'I am God and God is me', or prays to other than God, is guilty of apostasy. He doesn't have to appear on a radio show to officially announce his apostasy to the nation.

The one who does not ever commit an act of kufr, or even utter a word of kufr is not an apostate to begin with :)

You just dig too deep dawg. I think Sh. Qaradawi was talking in really general terms.

[Abuz Zubair]

Bro... the point is that Sh al-Qaradhawi is a well known modernist and a proponent of fiqh al-taysir, something even he does not deny. that is not to deny his efforts with respect to many other issues, such as refutation of secularists, nationalists, etc... but just acknowledging a reality.

What he stated is basically what he stated, without the need to dig deep into anything.

The apostate who does not 'announce' his apostasy, is not an apostate.

[1mran]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lBJmm-nfEow"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lBJmm-nfEow" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Lecture by Bilal philips, and also a document with something about the same issue.

this is his opinion.

Allah knows best

[Abu wakee]

Bro... the point is that Sh al-Qaradhawi is a well known modernist and a proponent of fiqh al-taysir, something even he does not deny. that is not to deny his efforts with respect to many other issues, such as refutation of secularists, nationalists, etc... but just acknowledging a reality.

What he stated is basically what he stated, without the need to dig deep into anything.

The apostate who does not 'announce' his apostasy, is not an apostate.

Perhaps this is what he meant. It is all irrelevant without a Shari'ah court.

[Abuz Zubair]

Allah knows best what he meant, but the dhahir of what he is saying is that the apostate who does not announce his apostasy is not punished.

Well, this is wrong, because apostates are punished, whether they announce to the word: 'Hello World! I am an apostate', or not.

Indeed, it is irrelevant, which is why I don't understand why the modernists love to bring these issues up time after time. This is one of my arguments against TR's call for moratorium.

This issue is only brought up due to their defeatist mentality. The burning urge to apologise.

[JayshAllah]

This is not true. Shaykh Qardawi does not say that. What he actually said is; people who are guilty of minor apostacy are given a 'grace period' to repent. However, there's a minority opinion which says they don't have to be killed even if they don't repent in that period. They can be imprisoned instead.

Don't twist what he said.

Brother, first I think it very offensive that you are accusing me of twisting what he said. This is just from what I ascertained from his fatwa, due to the following words by Shaykh Qaradawi:

"The death penalty with regard to apostasy is to be applied only to those who proclaim their apostasy and call for others to do the same"

And more explicitly he says:

"Islam does not call for the execution of apostates who do not proclaim their apostasy or call for it."

http://www.islamonline.net/English/contemporary/2006/04/article01c.shtml##top2

I tend to agree with him on this point.

The reason apostasy is punished by death is a deterrent to stop others from also getting the same idea. But if he never declares his apostasy openly or call for it, then it is a non-issue in my opinion. A similar situation such as Zinnah: if a man sins privately in the night, he has the option of not revealing his sin to a judge. Even if does go to a judge, the judge should turn his face away and say things like "perhaps you just kissed or hugged and nothing else..." (In other words, the punishment is to be averted if possible.) However, if a man openly commits Zinnah and then boasts about it telling all the people about it, then the Hadd is to be delivered upon him immediately and ASAP.

The Hadood is mostly to serve as a deterrence, to prevent people from looking at sinners as examples to follow.

Anyways, I'm obviously not qualified to deal with this or pass a fatwa about this...but Shaykh Qaradawi's stance does make a lot of sense. If a man loses faith in Islam but does not openly say that, then I feel that is a matter with him and Allah. And maybe he will turn back to the folds of Islam later.

You can read about more proofs here:

http://www.islamonline.net/English/contemporary/2006/04/article01.shtml

And let's just look at it from a *practical* point of view: if someone apostatizes in his heart but does not openly share this information, then how would the state execute him in the first place? As long as he does not commit any OPEN acts of kufr, then there is no way to tell that he is an apostate.

So from a practical viewpoint, the state wouldn't be able to punish such type of apostasy in the first place.

[1mran]

Brother, first I think it very offensive that you are accusing me of twisting what he said. This is just from what I ascertained from his fatwa, due to the following words by Shaykh Qaradawi:

"The death penalty with regard to apostasy is to be applied only to those who proclaim their apostasy and call for others to do the same"

And more explicitly he says:

"Islam does not call for the execution of apostates who do not proclaim their apostasy or call for it."

http://www.islamonline.net/English/contemporary/2006/04/article01c.shtml##top2

I tend to agree with him on this point.

The reason apostasy is punished by death is a deterrent to stop others from also getting the same idea. But if he never declares his apostasy openly or call for it, then it is a non-issue in my opinion. A similar situation such as Zinnah: if a man sins privately in the night, he has the option of not revealing his sin to a judge. Even if does go to a judge, the judge should turn his face away and say things like "perhaps you just kissed or hugged and nothing else..." (In other words, the punishment is to be averted if possible.) However, if a man openly commits Zinnah and then boasts about it telling all the people about it, then the Hadd is to be delivered upon him immediately and ASAP.

The Hadood is mostly to serve as a deterrence, to prevent people from looking at sinners as examples to follow.

Anyways, I'm obviously not qualified to deal with this or pass a fatwa about this...but Shaykh Qaradawi's stance does make a lot of sense. If a man loses faith in Islam but does not openly say that, then I feel that is a matter with him and Allah. And maybe he will turn back to the folds of Islam later.

You can read about more proofs here:

http://www.islamonline.net/English/contemporary/2006/04/article01.shtml

maybe you shouldnt compare a sin with apostacy....

or maybe there is a difference of opinion?

but shouldnt we follow what the Salaf say? or would that be taqleed too?

[JayshAllah]

maybe you shouldnt compare a sin with apostacy....

or maybe there is a difference of opinion?

but shouldnt we follow what the Salaf say? or would that be taqleed too?

The situation has changed a bit from the time of the Salaf. Back then, religious affiliation was strongly associated with political affiliation. Christian was your NATIONALITY back then and apostatizing from Christianity was considered treason against the state. Such is not the case any more. Being American, for example, does not necessitate being Christian or vice/versa.

Brother Abuz Zubair feels that we shouldn't follow the sayings of the Salaf when it comes to the matter of making Hijra back to the lands of Islam because he feels that the situation is different now than back then. I am only arguing a similar thing.

And there is evidence from both the Quran and Hadith that certain apostates were not killed unless they waged war on Islam by pen or by sword. I shall post it up Insha-Allah.

Anyways, not trying to say my view is right and yours is wrong. Just musing, nothing else...mostly because it is hard to swallow that our religion would call for death to people for changing religions.

[Abuz Zubair]

Again, dear bros... we shouldn't take the issues of legislation lightly. God forbid that we become legislators besides Him.

Yes, the wisdom behind the legislation of capital punishment for apostasy may be in order to prevent mass-scale fasad in the land, this is certainly NOT the 'illa for which an apostate is punished.

Punishment of apostasy is for all apostates, whether they proclaim to be apostates or not by consensus of the scholars.

And yes, the punishment of apostasy is very much like the punishment for zina, in the sense that if a person does not air his kufr views, or display his kufr actions to anyone, then no one could ever know that he is guilty of kufr, and hence, the question of punishment becomes completely irrelevant.

But if a person confesses to a judge that he committed zina, or that he now believes in praying to Muhammad - SallAllahu 'alaihi wa-sallam, he cannot circumvent the punishment, and neither can the judge, since it is not up to his discretion.

Yes, a judge may ask a Zani: 'perhaps, you just touched or kissed' in order to avert the punishment, just as the judge may ask the one accused of Shirk: 'perhaps, you meant something else...', in order to clarify what exactly the person is saying - if there is any doubt, simply because doubts prevent the hudud from being applied.

Please brothers, let us all be careful with respect to what we assert about Allah's laws.

[Abuz Zubair]

Brother Abuz Zubair feels that we shouldn't follow the sayings of the Salaf when it comes to the matter of making Hijra back to the lands of Islam because he feels that the situation is different now than back then. I am only arguing a similar thing.

You are neither presenting my argument accurately (far from it) nor are you arguing along similar lines...

There were no minorities at the time of the Salaf to my knowledge.

Again, let us not be over-confident, because at the end of the day, it is the Sharia that gets abused.

[JayshAllah]

in the sense that if a person does not air his kufr views, or display his kufr actions to anyone, then no one could ever know that he is guilty of kufr, and hence, the question of punishment becomes completely irrelevant.



I believe Shaykh Qaradawi is saying a similar thing to what you said above.

You are neither presenting my argument accurately (far from it) nor are you arguing along similar lines...

Yes, I very much am. I totally disagree with your views on Hijrah as I still very much believe it is obligatory on Muslims living in the West.



Again, let us not be over-confident

Yes, let us not be Abuz Zubair (i.e. over confident).

[1mran]

Yes, let us not be Abuz Zubair (i.e. over confident).


can having knowledge and being confident collide?

[Umm]

...mostly because it is hard to swallow that our religion would call for death to people for changing religions.

Brother JayshAllah, isn't treason against Allah worse than treason against the Islamic State?

[1mran]

Brother JayshAllah, isn't treason against Allah worse than treason against the Islamic State?

what would you say the difference is?

[Umm]

The former is major kufr. The latter, betraying the State , is not major kufr, unless it is established that you believe it is halal, thus making the haram halal.

[1mran]

The former is major kufr. The latter, betraying the State , is not major kufr, unless it is established that you believe it is halal, thus making the haram halal.

when you say islamic state, you meat like a Khilafah right? and isnt that based on the Quran and sunnah.

so arent the laws of Allah and the Allahs of the state, in theory, the same?

[JayshAllah]

Brother JayshAllah, isn't treason against Allah worse than treason against the Islamic State?

I think the former is between Allah and the individual, whereas the latter is not. For example, if a Christian believes that Jesus [as] is the son of God, then the Islamic state would not punish him, even though they would punish him for the lesser crime of stealing from or killing people.

Anyways, I will stop arguing about this topic. Obviously, the majority opinion is different than what I am saying. However, there are some qualified Islamic scholars who have differing opinions and so it is not at all heretical to think otherwise.

[Umm]

Brother Jayshallah, I think you misunderstand the term "apostasy" It doesn't refer to someone believing in the trinity under the Islamic state, as a a dhimmi. The apostate is the one who is a Muslim and then he leaves Islam. So there is a huge difference in saying that we wouldn't punish a christian for his shirk, even though he would be punished for stealing etc, and saying why should a Muslim who apostates be put to death for apostasy.

[Abuz Zubair]

It is indeed heretical if it goes against the consensus.

[JayshAllah]

Brother Jayshallah, I think you misunderstand the term "apostasy" It doesn't refer to someone believing in the trinity under the Islamic state, as a a dhimmi. The apostate is the one who is a Muslim and then he leaves Islam.

No no, I very much understand the term apostasy. I was giving an analogy to show how it is not necessary that a "bigger" sin have a "bigger" Hadd punishment in this life.

[JayshAllah]

It is indeed heretical if it goes against the consensus.

Then is not your view that Hijrah is not mandatory on the Muslims living in Dar al-Harb and amongst Mushriks...is this not heretical?

[Abuz Zubair]

What is the relevance of this:

It is indeed heretical if it goes against the consensus.

with this:

Then is not your view that Hijrah is not mandatory on the Muslims living in Dar al-Harb and amongst Mushriks...is this not heretical?

[Umm]

No no, I very much understand the term apostasy. I was giving an analogy to show how it is not necessary that a "bigger" sin have a "bigger" Hadd punishment in this life.

Sorry, I should have made myself clear. A Christian who is under the khilafah pays the jizyah, and with that covenant comes the agreement that one sticks to the shari'ah regarding not stealing etc. So how can they be punished for something (i.e. being a Christian) when that right to religion is what they are paying jizyah for in the 1st place?

[JayshAllah]

Sorry, I should have made myself clear. A Christian who is under the khilafah pays the jizyah, and with that covenant comes the agreement that one sticks to the shari'ah regarding not stealing etc. So how can they be punished for something (i.e. being a Christian) when that right to religion is what they are paying jizyah for in the 1st place?

Sister, you are not understanding my argument. Forget it, it's not important. I don't want to argue, since I know that the opinion I believe in is a minority opinion.

[Abuz Zubair]

It is a heretical opinion.

[JayshAllah]

It is a heretical opinion.

Then based on this logic so is your view about living in the West (i.e. Dar al Harb).

[Abuz Zubair]

explain, plz.

[Nooristan]

The Qur’an is clear regarding the apostate:


JazackAllahkhairun..

[Umm Ahmed]

Keep us posted Abu Hannah ,on how you get on with your guiding the brother InshaAllaah.

[Nooristan]

Keep us posted Abu Hannah ,on how you get on with your guiding the brother InshaAllaah.

will do inshAllah

[ali]

Sister, you are not understanding my argument. Forget it, it's not important. I don't want to argue, since I know that the opinion I believe in is a minority opinion.

yah akhee kareem

To the extent of my knowledge I have not encountered a scholar yet who issued a fatwa of negating hadd for the MUSLIM LEAVING ISLAM.

The issues as to the ahkaam regarding it are many, from establoishing doubts, grace periods, etc, are of course differed over, these are furoo matters. But the actual issue of killing the apostate is an asl.

that is because "mere" apostacy alone wihtout treason to state 9even though in reality it treason to Allah is as well treason to the state) is connected to "fasad fil ardh"

You have to understand a very important matter not even thought of by many. If one chnages his or her deen, and if they wished not to created "fasad" in the land, then their beleif is kept to themselves and while still remaining or doing the actions of the muslims on the outside. They would be munafiqeen. However, what or how is it looked when one openly caste their beleif in public view. This is nothing but creating strife in the land.

but this is all theoretical and of no benefit, it is just obligatory on you to accept straight up with willing and full submission to the fact that it was narrated by the same people who narrated the quraan "the people are saved from me except in the case of three, 1. the maker of zina, 2, the murderer, and 3, the one who leaves his deen

full stop

asalamu alaikum

[Converted2Islam]

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem,

Asalamu Alaykum brothers and sisters in Islam,

I am Converted2Islam, or as sister Umm puts it “this guy” who made the video about apostasy. Below is my reply to sister Umm’s claims about my video:

Sister Umm said:

“The Qur’an is clear regarding the apostate:

"They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another). So take not Auliya' (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allah (to Muhammad ). But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold) of them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Auliya' (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them." [Surah Nisa verse 89]”

My Reply:
Sister Umm, this verse does not refer to Muslim apostasy but to hypocrites who committed treason, see verse 88! The Qur’an tells us these hypocrites had rejected faith (v. 89) so they were not Muslims anyway. Besides, this verse is referring to the Battle of Uhud where the hypocrites nearly caused a disaster to the Muslim community. These people would not be killed for apostasy but for deserting the Muslim army and for treason and they would have been treated as enemies as they wanted to help the enemy forces against the Muslims. In the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir we read about Chapter 4 verse 89 and onwards: “Allah criticizes the believers for disagreeing over the hypocrites. There are conflicting opinions over the reason behind revealing this Ayah. Imam Ahmad recorded that Zayd bin Thabit said that Messenger of Allah marched towards Uhud. However, some people who accompanied him went back to Al-Madinah, and the Companions of the Messenger of Allah divided into two groups concerning them, one saying they should be killed and the other objecting. Allah sent down,
(Then what is the matter with you that you are divided into two parties about the hypocrites) The Messenger of Allah said,
(She (Al-Madinah) is Taybah, and she expels filth, just as the billow expels rust from iron.) The Two Sahihs also recorded this Hadith. Al-`Awfi reported that Ibn `Abbas said that the Ayah was revealed about some people in Makkah who said they embraced Islam, yet they gave their support to the idolators. One time, these people went out of Makkah to fulfill some needs and said to each other, "If we meet the Companions of Muhammad, there will be no harm for us from their side.'' When the believers got news that these people went out of Makkah, some of them said, "Let us march to these cowards and kill them, because they support your enemy against you.'' However, another group from the believers said, "Glory be to Allah! Do you kill a people who say as you have said, just because they did not perform Hijrah or leave their land. Is it allowed to shed their blood and confiscate their money in this case'' So they divided to two groups, while the Messenger was with them, and did not prohibit either group from reiterating their argument. Thereafter, Allah revealed,
(Then what is the matter with you that you are divided into two parties about the hypocrites) Ibn Abi Hatim recorded this Hadith“
So sister Umm as you see from the Tafsir, this verse is not dealing with Muslim apostasy but with high treason against the Muslim army and state. The Tafsir even tells us that the companions of the Prophet (sas) were divided on the issue whether they should kill the treasonists or not! Also notice Allah says in verse 90 that if they join into a peace treaty with the Muslims they should not be killed! This also gives support to my statement in my video that an apostate is not killed in Islam if they do not fight Islam. In Islam a person is not to be killed for apostasy alone!

Sister Umm said:

”There are several ahadith in Bukhari too:

Volume 9, Book 83, Number 37:

Narrated Abu Qilaba: ...I said, "By Allah, Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate." Then the people said, "Didn't Anas bin Malik narrate that Allah's Apostle cut off the hands of the thieves, branded their eyes and then, threw them in the sun?" I said, "I shall tell you the narration of Anas. Anas said: "Eight persons from the tribe of 'Ukl came to Allah's Apostle and gave the Pledge of allegiance for Islam (became Muslim). The climate of the place (Medina) did not suit them, so they became sick and complained about that to Allah's Apostle. He said (to them ), "Won't you go out with the shepherd of our camels and drink of the camels' milk and urine (as medicine)?" They said, "Yes." So they went out and drank the camels' milk and urine, and after they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of Allah's Apostle and took away all the camels. This news reached Allah's Apostle , so he sent (men) to follow their traces and they were captured and brought (to the Prophet). He then ordered to cut their hands and feet, and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron, and then he threw them in the sun till they died." I said, "What can be worse than what those people did? They deserted Islam, committed murder and theft."

My reply:
Sister Umm you misunderstood the above verse of the Qur’an because you didn’t consult a Tafsir, now you are misinterpreting the hadith as well. Be careful sister, apostasy is a serious matter! The hadith itself tells you it is taking about high treason, fighting Islam and apostasy, not just apostasy alone! I Quote: “…(3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate.”. I am very familiar with this hadith, in fact it is used against me all the time by Christian missionaries in my debates with them. Muslims should not misinterpret this hadith the same way the Christians do. These eight persons from the tribe of 'Ukl were not killed solely for apostasy but because they committed murder and theft and fought against Allah and His Apostle, and spread evil in the land. These men got what they deserved, a sort of eye for an eye punishment. As Muslims we believe in equality, which is a universal principle. Qur’an 16:126 says: “And if ye do catch them out, catch them out no worse than they catch you out: But if ye show patience, that is indeed the best (course) for those who are patient.” You see Allah says patience is better! The reason why the Prophet applied such a brutal punishment to those men was because the Prophet found out that those men did the same exact thing to the shepherd they killed. Thus the men were not killed for apostasy but more for murder!
Sister Umm said:

”He rejects hadiths on the death penalty for apostasy, as they are "ahad hadiths"?!”

My reply:

I don’t reject Ahad hadiths, what I said was these hadiths are isolated and therefore cannot be used alone to bring the death penalty against an apostate (in an Islamic Court of Law). Islam puts a high price on human life, you can’t just throw any piece of evidence at a person in order to kill him! The Qur’an says to kill one person is like killing all humanity! I Quote: “On that account We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole humanity: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the whole humanity…..” (Qur’an 5:32). Think about it, if you as a judge had an apostate killed based on evidence that was not strong, you would be committing a grave error.


Sister Umm said:

"Every single instance of apostasy at the time of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) involved treason..." he said. He shows a lack of understanding that apostasy is worse than treason. And anyway, not every apostate went on to fight against the State, as a part of a political conspiracy as he claims. I wonder if this guy is a HT, as conspiracies against eh state are most serious than apostasy, and he rejects ahad hadith?”

My reply:

No, what I was alluding to was that every instance of apostasy during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad (sas) that deserved the death penalty was one of treason, rebellion and/or political betrayal. There was never a death penalty for apostasy alone! You have not provided any evidence which suggests otherwise! It’s true not every apostate went on to fight against the state as part of a political conspiracy. That’s exactly why I’m saying apostates were not killed (for apostasy alone)! Like I said before, I do not reject Ahad hadths.

Sister Umm said:

Volume 9, Book 89, Number 271:

Narrated Abu Musa:
A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu'adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle.

The above hadith doesn't mention treason at all.”

My Reply:

Ask yourself, is this a hadith from the Prophet (sas) or from Mu’adh bin Jabal? If a comapanion says something which is contrary to the Qur'an and Sunnah of Muhammad (sas) can we aceept this?


Sister Umm said:

“He quotes ayaat (2:256, 10:99, 15:2-3 and 18:29. Every one of these references refers to "no compulsion in religion" i.e. not forcing someone to convert. It doesn't say anything about the murtad.”

My Reply:

So if you agree we can’t force someone to enter Islam, how can you force someone to re-enter Islam (after they apostate)?

Sister Umm said:

“He cites the following ayah as proof that a person can apostate as many times as they wish, without the death penalty:

137. Verily, those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe (again), and (again) disbelieve, and go on increasing in disbelief; Allah will not forgive them, nor guide them on the (Right) Way.”

My Reply:

That’s right! This verse clearly mentions multiple apostasies without the death penalty; it only says that Allah will not forgive them. This implies the judgement is for Allah alone on the Day of Judgement or whenever Allah pleases. Do you see any death penalty in this verse? Treason is a crime against the Islamic State, apostasy is a crime against Allah. The punishment of hell is much greater than the punishment on earth!

Sister Umm said:

“He claims that they following ayah (5:54, 13:40, 2:217, 5:49, 3:85, 3:90, 47:34 and 16:106-109] which refer to the disbelievers (NOT apostates) being punished in the akhirah, is proof that they have no death penalty in this life. Not one of these ayaat deal with the apostate! Some are even general ayaat, that are irrelevant to his argument. e.g.”

My Reply:

What? You better take another look! Without wasting too much time lets look at the first one. 5:54 says: “Oh ye who believe! If any from among you turn back from his faith……”. Sister how can you say this verse does not refer to apostates? It is referring to apostates! It’s as clear as black and white??? May Allah show you. Amen.

Sister Umm said:

”" Whether We show you (O Muhammad ) part of what We have promised them or cause you to die, your duty is only to convey (the Message) and on Us is the reckoning." [13:40]”

My Reply:

Yes indeed! The verse is plain and simple, the Prophet’s (sas) job was not to force people to believe but to covey the message.

Sister Umm said:

“He also cites ayah trying to prove his claim that apostasy and freedom of religion is tolerated: 24:54, 42:6, 2:108, 3:20, 5:3 and 27: 92
Look at 5:3 alone:

".. This day, those who disbelieved have given up all hope of your religion, so fear them not, but fear Me. This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion." Where does it support his false claims?”

My Reply:

The better question would be; where does it support your claim sister? If anything it supports my claim and not yours because the verse mentions those who disbelieve and have given up hope of Islam, but it does not mention any death penalty.
In my video I already mentioned the early salaf leaders and scholars who did not believe in killing apostates. I will mention them again now but with more detail.

#1. Caliph Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz (d. 97 AH/720 AD), (popularly known as Umar II and regarded as part of the Khulafa-i-Rashidoon). Some people accepted Islam during the period of Umar bin Abdul Aziz, who is called the fifth rightful caliph of Islam. All these people renounced Islam sometime later. Maimoon bin Mahran the governor of the area wrote to the caliph about these people. In reply Umar bin Abdul Aziz ordered him to release those people and asked him to re-impose jizya on them. (Musannaf Abdur Razzaq pp. 171-10). Abdur Razzaq ibn Humama (d. 211 AH). This is the earliest musannaf (a hadith collection arranged in topical chapters) work in existence.


#2. The leading first-century jurist, Ibrahim al-Nakha‘i (d. 95), a teacher of Imam Abu Hanifah. According to al-Nakha'i, the apostate should be re-invited to Islam, but should never be condemned to death. He maintained the view that the invitation should continue for as long as there is hope that the apostate might change his mind and repent.

#3. The second century hadith expert Sufyan al-Thawri (d. 161). He was known as 'the prince of the believers concerning Hadith' (amir al-mu'minin fi'l-Hadith)
He ruled that an apostate is to be invited back to Islam as long as there is a hope for his repentance and is not to be condemned to death.

Now lets take a look at some more proof from the hadiths.

Here is a very reliable hadith which suggests that the Prophet (sas) was not thinking in terms of any death penalty for apostasy. This hadith is found in three of our best sources, Muwatta, Bukhari and Muslim, as well as in Tirmidhi, Nasa`i, and Ahmad. It is found mainly in two different versions.

Narration of Muhammad bin al-Munkadir;
A bedouin gave the Pledge of allegiance to Allah's Apostle for Islam. Then the bedouin got fever at Medina, came to Allah's Apostle and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Cancel my Pledge," But Allah's Apostle refused. Then he came to him (again) and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Cancel my Pledge." But the Prophet refused Then he came to him (again) and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Cancel my Pledge." But the Prophet refused. The bedouin finally went out (of Medina) whereupon Allah's Apostle said, "Medina is like a pair of bellows (furnace): It expels its impurities and brightens and clears its good. [Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, # 318]
This was an open case of apostasy. But the Prophet neither punished the Bedouin nor asked anyone to do it. He allowed him to leave Madina. Nobody harmed him.
Yahya related to me from Malik from Muhammad bin al-Munkadir from Jabir bin ‘Abd Allah: A Bedouin gave a pledge of allegiance for embracing Islam. The next day he came with fever and so came to the Prophet, saying: "O Messenger of God! Cancel my pledge." The Prophet refused. He came to him again and said: “Cancel my pledge”. He refused. He came to him another time and said: “Cancel my pledge.” He refused again. The Bedouin then went out (of Madinah). Then the Messenger of God said: “Madinah is exactly like a furnace; it expels out the impurities and retains the good." (Muwatta 1377)
Like the above narration, most other narrations -- Bukhari 9/316=6669, 9/424A = 6777, Muslim 2453, Tirmidhi 3855, Nasa`i 4114, Ahmad 13766 -- come with the isnad: Malik (d. 179) -- Muhammad bin al-Munkadir (d. 131) – Jabir bin ‘Abd Allah (d. 78)
Some -- Bukhari 3/107 = 1750, Ahmad 13781, 14409, 14682 -- also come with the isnad: Sufyan al-Thawri (d. 161) -- Muhammad bin al-Munkadir – Jabir bin ‘Abd Allah
As well as this well-attested case of the Bedouin apostate who was not punished by death or in any other way, some other hadiths also mention other cases of apostates who were not executed.
Muhammad bin Rafi‘ related to us: Abu Nadr related to us: Sulayman (ibn al-Mughirah) related to us from Thabit from Anas bin Malik who said: There was among us a man from Banu al-Najjar who had read Surah al-Baqarah and Al ‘Imran and used to write for the Messenger of God but later on he departed in flight and joined the people of the book. They gave him lift saying, This is he who used to write for Muhammad. And they felt good about him. He did not live for long when God struck his neck among them. They dug for him and buried him. By the morning the earth threw him on its top. They again dug for him and buried him but by the morning the earth again threw him on its top. They dug for him yet again and buried him but by the morning the earth threw him again on its top. So they left him discarded. (Muslim 6/360 = 4987; Ahmad 12846 also from Sulayman with the same isnad and very similar wording)

Abu Ma‘mar related to us: ‘Abd al-Warith related to us: ‘Abd al-‘Aziz related to us from Anas: There was a Christian who embraced Islam and read Surah al-Baqarah and Al ‘Imran. He used to write for the Prophet but later on he reverted to Christianity and started to say: "Muhammad knows nothing but what I have written for him." Then God caused him to die, and the people buried him, but by the morning the earth had thrown his body out. They said, "This is the act of Muhammad and his Companions. They dug the grave of our companion and took his body out of it because he had run away from them." They again dug the grave for him, making it deep, but by the morning the earth had thrown his body out. They said, "This is an act of Muhammad and his Companions. They dug the grave of our companion and threw his body outside it, for he had run away from them." They once again dug the grave for him as deep as they could, but by the morning the earth had again thrown his body out. So they believed that what had befallen him was not done by human beings and so left him (thrown on the ground). (Bukhari 4/814 = 3348)

Also don’t forget I mentioned two important examples which show the Prophet Muhammad (sas) did not kill two other men for leaving Islam. The examples were of ‘Ubaydullah bin Jahsh (who became Christian) and ‘Abdullah ibn Sa’d (who reverted to idolatory)]. No one was sentenced to death solely for renunciation of faith unless accompanied by hostility and treason or was linked to an act of political betrayal of the community. In fact as I said in my video Ibn Hisham even says the Prophet (sas) pardoned Abdullah ibn Sa’d!In closing I say nobody has posted any solid evidence here that Islam teaches us to kill apostates. On the contrary, the Qur’an, the authentic hadiths and examples of the Prophet (sas) and some of the early salaf scholars teach us not to kill apostates.

I suggest to myself and to us all; instead of trying to prevent Muslims from leaving Islam out of fear of the death penalty we should rather as Muslims be trying to be the best examples we can be to people, especially to people with weak faith. That way they will remain Muslims through love of Allah and Islam, not through fear alone. Righteous fear is fine, but it must be accompanied by love as well.

And by the way brother Abu Zubair it is indeed false to say to your brother: “It is indeed heretical if it goes against the consensus.” Your brother is not a kafir heretic if he has an opinion different from the minority opinion! Please realize that some of the early scholars themselves did not even agree as to what consensus is. Anyway that’s a different topic. Muslims should show mercy because Allah is Ar Raheem (Most Merciful) and Muslims need to show tolerance to other Muslims who differ with them.

Yes my opinion seems to be the minority opinion but it is an opinion based on the Qur’an and Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (sas) and the statements of some important scholars. The way I see it, the evidence for killing apostates is weak with no strong bases and Allah knows best!

I don't want to waste my time here debating with fellow Muslims, I'd rather spend my time giving dawah to non-Muslims, thats more benefical. So let Allah (s.w.t.) have the last words on this post:

"If it had been the Lord's Will, they would all have believed - all who are on earth! Will you then compel mankind against their will, to believe?" (Qur'an 10:99).

AND

"Say, 'The truth is from your Lord'. Let him who will, believe, and let him who will, reject (it)..." (Qur'an 18:29).

I hope this post clarifies things. Asalamu Alaykum.

[JayshAllah]

I actually think the mainstream opinion is not that different, and I don't mind taking that view, as long as we establish this point, which is that if a person does not declare his apostasy nor does he commit any flagrant and open acts of Kufr, then he is not to be killed. In other words, this ruling is not *enforced* upon those who simply lose faith but who do not express this view to others. Like Imam Bilal Phillips said, "we are not the Gestapo who go into peoples' houses and see if they are praying or not."

My only concern is this: many of you who have spent ZERO time giving Dawah to Non-Muslims, oftentimes you word things in a way that it sounds so brutish that you negate tons of Dawah effort. I am not saying that we should change the word of Allah to make it more acceptable to Non-Muslims, only that we should use tact. Even the mainstream view can be made more acceptable if it is properly worded and explained in a decent manner:

Firstly, explain to them the historical reason why this ruling is there, and how even today we have the Taghoot hiring Muslim apostates to do their dirty work. Secondly, we explain how the only issue is that a person cannot convey his apostasy to others nor openly commits acts of Kufr which would make his Kufr known to people.

[Umm]

Brother converted2islam, I will insha'Allah respond to your points. Firstly though, the hadith below, do you accept it or not?

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:

Narrated Ikrima:

Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' " "

[Converted2Islam]

Sister Umm, you didn't give the full reference of the hadith. I'm assuming you mean Al Bukhari?

Allah knows best about this hadith because the narrater Ikrimah is said to have had sympathy with the Khawarij, if he was not actually one of them. Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (r) was reported as saying that ‘Ikrimah belonged to a sect of the Khawarij, as to the identity of the sect we don't know.

Historical reports indicate that the Khawarij believed, and whenever possible practiced, the killing of those Muslims whom they considered as apostates. They fought with ‘Ali on the basis of a similar thinking. ‘Ikrimah seems to have shared this view. According to Ibn al-Madini ‘Ikrimah once stood beside the door of a masjid and said: "All who are inside are apostates". And once at the time of hajj when people were gathered around the Ka‘bah, ‘Ikrimah is reported to have said: "I wish I had a spear in my hand to kill all those who came to hajj this year". It would thus appear that the rule, "Whoever changed his religion, kill him", originated as a view held by the Khawarij and then made into a hadith by someone, probably by ‘Ikrimah, who certainly provided it with an isnad by attributing it to Ibn ‘Abbas after the latter’s death. The “hadith” began to spread in the second and third generations, thereafter becoming more and more acceptable.

And Allah knows best for sure!

[Umm]

Does Ibn Al-Madini offer any reason why Ikrimah (RA) would pronounce takfeer on the inhabitants of the masjid, or all of the hujjaj?

Will you concede that the hadith of Ikrimah which does not mention treason, is in agreement with the hadith of Mu'adh ibn Jabal that rasoolullah (SAW) gave the verdict that the apostate is to be killed?

Sahih al-Bukhari
Volume 9, Book 89, Number 271:

Narrated Abu Musa:
A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu'adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle."

Was Mu'adh (RA) attributing to rasoolullah (SAW) something which he did not say?

[Abuz Zubair]

OMG!

Dear convert, do you have any idea what on earth you are doing?

You are weakening a hadeeth Sahih al-Bukhari!

Are you out of your mind?!

[Umm]

If they can reject hadiths in bukhari because they are ahad, I guess attempting to weaken them isn't surprising.
It's like Sheikh Suhaib always says, who can tell you who is your father? Only your mother. A single narrator.

[Abuz Zubair]

Not only that, but he went as far as declaring the great Imam, 'Ikrima to be a khariji! This is after all the Imams of hadeeth have accepted his imamate. And indeed, as Ibn Hajar says, once the imamate of a person is established, jarh does not affect him at all. And as a matter of fact, even those who despised him narrated his traditions. they would say that whoever doesn't narrate from 'Ikrima, he has lost two-thirds of knowledge.

One of the Salaf said that if you see anyone speaking ill of 'Ikrima, doubt his Islam.

[JayshAllah]

the narrater Ikrimah

Brother, Imam Bukhari [r] has relied on him for over 200 narrations!

[Saif ul Haq]

I have never come across 2 opinions regarding killing apostates whether it is minor or major, both are to be killed with the exception of the minor be given a chance to repent.

What other scholars from amongst the Salaf differed? Or is this differing some thing contemporary?

[abu_ibrahim]

How dare this punk attack the honour of Ikrimah.

[Skillganon]

Salam,

the brother probably made a mistake. So let him stand corrected.

[Saif ul Haq]

Since he is a revert than it is best to clarify on the major mistakes he is making InshAllaah since he seems to have been a victim of a modernist bug.

[Abuz Zubair]

If he is a new Muslim, he shouldn't be airing whatever views he hears, so eagerly and with such amazing confidence, let alone posting a video on YouTube. Surely he does demonstrate more than just amateur level of knowledge on the issue.

[Nooristan]

he is a revert .

I am a revert too,difference is I know my place in the deen,sometimes the revert brothers can cause a lot,a lot,a lot of havoc,I have seen it to many times over the years,it usually takes them about ten years to clock on that they dont know anything about islam,as I am just about now seeing myself and I embraced in jan 99,and I still dont know anything except the most basic matters,hamdulilah I know my place...

[Brother_Mujahid]

I always found it irritating when converts try to impose aspects of their jahiliyyah in Islam. The modernists further confound the issue by trying to be excessively apologetic with new Muslims.

This newly invented concept that their is no punishment for apostacy comes from Muhammad 'Abduh and his students in Egypt. It was later picked up by the Ikhwan and it is from them that it has reached us today. Prior to this, I am unaware of any scholar, even from among Ahl al-bid'ah, making such a claim.

Brothers how just read a few modernist tracts should not take it upon themselves to issue such bolsterous fatawa. Nor should they try to grade hadith. Such is a dangerous path to all kinds of heresy.

[Skillganon]

My personal take is being a revert is not the main issue. Anyone newly learning about their deen be it revert or born muslim can go off in these kind of tangent or fall into such mistake.

It is something we in general who are trying to learn about Islam must be more careful about.

[Converted2Islam]

Brother and sisters, don't be so harsh. I'm not saying Ikrimah is totally unreliable! I only said there were scholars who doubted his realiability. We have to take this into account. About his hadith, I say Allah knows best, but I believe the evidence is strongest for the opinion the apostate is not to be killed. Ikrimah has received mixed reviews from the scholars of hadith. Some scholars such as Yahya bin Ma‘in, Bukhari, Nasa`i, ‘Ijli, and Abu Hatim al-Razi are reported to consider him reasonably trustworthy while others considered him a liar or at least untrustworthy.

Abu 'Amr 'Uthman ibn al-Salah (d. 643) in his book ‘Ulum al-Hadith, commonly know as Muqaddimah of Ibn al-Salah, says that Bukhari has reported from narrators who were not trusted by others. He mentions ‘Ikrimah as one of the narrators not trusted by others. Muhammad bin Sa'd in al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, Abu Ja‘far al-‘Aqili in Kitab al-Du‘afa` al-Kabir, al-Dhahabi in Mizan al-I‘tidal, and Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani in Fath al-Bari quote several early scholars who considered ‘Ikrimah as untrustworthy.
Now don't twist my words, I'm not questioning Imam Al Bukhari (r), the early scholars of hadith had their different standards.
This is off the topic but did you hear that Reverend Jerry Farwell has died? You know the American Christian preacher who called Prophet Muhammad (sas) a terrorist? Allah took his soul!

[Nooristan]

My personal take is being a revert is not the main issue. Anyone newly learning about their deen be it revert or born muslim can go off in these kind of tangent or fall into such mistake.

It is something we in general who are trying to learn about Islam must be more careful about.

agreed,jzk.

[Converted2Islam]

Anyway brothers and sisters, I'm not really interested in debating this issue any further. I have weighed the evidence from both sides and I will stick to my opinion on apsotasy. Besides some people on this site seem to have little tolerance to minority opinions and bad manners. Remember the sunnah of the Prophet (sas), Muslims have rights over one another. Differing is not a reason to tear each others character apart. No wonder the Ummah is in the mess it is today. Some comments here reflect that poor state.

So for these reasons I will get back to my dawah to the kuffar, as that is more benefial. Barak Allah fiq. May Allah guide us to all truth and help us to know what it really means to be a merciful true Muslim. However if anyone wants to do some research on this issue, I will be glad to help fisibilillah.

Asalamu Alaykum.......

[Abuz Zubair]

I don't have the time nowadays to respond to everything. May be after a month we can deal with this issue in-depth. But dear brother, you are really not in a position to weigh up the evidences, since you are not qualified for ijtihad, let alone promote it on forums and YouTube.

Also, there is a difference between a minority opinion and a shaadh opinion. Minority opinion is where differences may be tolerated. Shaadh opinion is where differences are NOT tolerated. A minority opinion is, for instance, not raising the hands before and after ruku'.

Shaadh opinion is like drinking wine or allowing mut'a.

And if you can go ahead with this opinion on apostasy, it becomes extremely easy to accommodate the opinion that mut'a is Halal. Until you end up with a religion that seems more perverted than the perverted version of modern Christianity. This is why the scholars described it as Zandaqa for one to seek out and follow shaadh opinions.

Imagine the opinion that there is no Riba involved in paper money, and likewise no Zakah, because it isn't Gold and Silver.

[Converted2Islam]

I know I said I would not debate anymore but I don't want to the leave the impression that I am a scholar.

Brother Abuz Zubair when I said I was weighing the evidence I was not refering to my personal ijtihad as a scholar. I'm not a scholar, I'm only a student. When a Muslim is confronted with two opinions from the early scholars of Islam, that Muslim has to use his brain to choose the opinion that seems to be most correct. A scholar can't do everything for you, Allah does ask us to stimulate our brains. When the scholars don't agree on something, one scholar saying something, another scholar saying something else, thats the point were you must decide based on their research. We are not asked to make ijtihad but to look at the opposing views of the scholars who did make ijtihad on the issue. We can't always rely on the consensus of the scholars 100% of the time because what consensus is or what it even means has been debated by scholars. Based on what I have seen the consensus from the salaf was not to kill the apostate if he or she was peaceful. Allah knows best.

Besides, the teacher of Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Ibrahim al-Nakha‘i and the hadith expert Sufyan al-Thawri were in a position to make ijtihad.

I agree with their ijtihad and follow their fatwa on this issue. Thats it for me, Barak Allah fiqum.

[WM]

btw way Abuz Zubair, the narrations from the salaf aren't given a source in the original article, other than Mohammad Hashim Kamali's book- do you know of any actual such narrations?

[Abuz Zubair]

If you are not a mujtahid you are only required to make taqleed of a scholar known for his knowledge and taqwa, and to make sure you do not follow them in their errors.

This opinion you are promoting is nothing but a horrible, and perhaps intentional error on part of the modern day scholars who should better be known as ibahiyyoon (loosely translated as 'liberals'), whether they like it or not.

If the opinion you are defending is a shaadh opinion, i.e. where difference of opinion is NOT allowed, weighing up the proofs goes out of the window.

Besides, what you have stated above is completely biased and narrow-minded way of looking at the whole subject. The scholars you are following in this opinion - in bulk - are the modernist product of Muhammad 'Abduh. like everything else, they have also inherited his defeatist mindset, which makes the Western values as a yardstick to judge Islamic morals and values. This is what drives them to not only abolition the punishment for apostasy, but also many, many other aspects of Sharia. It is only a matter of time when these defeatist scholars of yours begin to allow the liberal mu'ta marriages and Jumu'a prayers on a Sunday!

Not to mention that your posts clearly demonstrate your inability to compare between legal proofs and arguments, that is if we were to accept that this issue is open for a debate, to begin with.

For instance, prove to me that what you attributed to al-Nakh'i and al-Thawri is actually their madhab. I don't want to know about al-Nawawi or Abu Hayyan attributing this opinion to the two Imams. I want to know with isnad, whether or not it is authentically attributed to the two Imams.

Secondly, even the reported opinion of two does NOT cancel out the punishment for apostasy, rather, it states that they should be imprisoned, all their assets frozen.

Thirdly, when they say that there is no fixed period during which a murtad is asked to repent, they are simply deny the period, and not that the capital punishment is NOT carried out. Meaning, whereas the scholars said: the apostate is given respite to rethink for three days, some say a month; the two Imams say that there is no such limit. Rather, when one becomes certain that he knows the truth and he has made up his mind and is not going to change, i.e. when his case becomes hopeless, he is killed.

Fourthly, some scholars explained the opinion of these two Imams that they are talking about repetitive apostasy. I.e. a group of scholars say that if a person becomes a murtad on three separate occasions, then his repentance is NOT to be accepted, because he is just playing. The two Imams, on the contrary, said that there should be no such limitation, rather their repentance should be accepted whenever they repent.

Fifthly, when we have clear cut legal proofs backing the Ijma' - consensus of the Muslim Ummah over an issue, and then someone attributes - not narrates authentically - but only attributes an opinion to less than a handful of scholars, the objective truth seeker should not twist the legal texts, reject the ijma' only for the supposed view of two scholars, which can't even be proven that they are actually theirs! Of course, if a person is not objective in his research to begin with, he has already used Western values as a yardstick to decide what Islamic values should be, he only needs a straw to clutch on to, and this is exactly what you are doing here.

I also gave you examples of legal issues where scholars genuinely differed, yet, the differences were of the type that must not be tolerated:

Shaadh opinion is like drinking wine or allowing mut'a.

and:

Imagine the opinion that there is no Riba involved in paper money, and likewise no Zakah, because it isn't Gold and Silver.

And there are many more examples, such as eating ice while fasting and other such opinions.

Would you respect the difference of opinion in such issues, simply because there are scholars who supported these odd opinions?

btw way Abuz Zubair, the narrations from the salaf aren't given a source in the original article, other than Mohammad Hashim Kamali's book- do you know of any actual such narrations?

The narrations about Umar b. 'Abd al-'Aziz are found in Musannaf of 'Abd al-razzaq. However, this brother only quotes the narration with the narrator says: I was told by some people that Umar b. Abd al-'Aziz... Who those people are remains unknown. Yet, he conveniently misses out the narration where Umar b. Abd al-'Aziz advises that if this person who left Islam dos NOT know the Shara'i of Islam such as Salah, Zakah, etc then leave him alone and take from him Jizya. However, if he knows the Shara'i of Islam, then present to him the choice of becoming a Muslim again or capital punishment.

Why was this narration left out?!

Isn't the bias here more than obvious?!

[Converted2Islam]

Brother Abuz Zubair said:

"The scholars you are following in this opinion - in bulk - are the modernist product of Muhammad 'Abduh...."

AND

Brother Mujahid said:

"This newly invented concept that their is no punishment for apostacy comes from Muhammad 'Abduh and his students in Egypt. It was later picked up by the Ikhwan and it is from them that it has reached us today. Prior to this, I am unaware of any scholar, even from among Ahl al-bid'ah, making such a claim."

My reply:

Brothers perhaps your just not aware? Besides the examples of imams and the caliph I gave in my earlier rebuttal there are a few more names that date before Muhammad 'Abduh and his students:

1. Shams al-Din al-Sarakhsi [d. 389 AH]
[An eminent Hanafi jurist and author of al-Mabsut]

"The prescribed penalties (Hudud) are generally not suspended because of repentance, especially when they are reported and become known to the head of state (imam). The punishment of highway robbery, for instance, is not suspended because of repentance; it is suspended only by the return of property to the owner prior to arrest. ... Renunciation of the faith and conversion to disbelief is admittedly the greatest of offenses, yet it is a matter between man and his Creator, and its punishment is postponed to the day of judgment (fa'l-jaza' 'alayha mu'akhkhar ila dar al-jaza'). Punishments that are enforced in this life are those which protect the people's interests, such as just retaliation, which is designed to protect life." [al-Mabsut, X, p. 110, Mohammad Hashim Kamali’s Freedom of Expression in Islam Islamic Text Society, 1997].

2. Abu Al-Walid Al-Baji [d. 474 AH]
[a noted Maliki jurist; a contemporary of Imam Ibn Hazm]

... observed that apostasy is a sin which carries no prescribed penalty (hadd), and that such a sin may only be punished under the discretionary punishment of ta'zir ... [mentioned in Kamali cited above]

3. Imam Abu 'Abdullah Al-Qurtubi [d. 1273 AD]
[Eminent Malike Scholar of hadith and fiqh]

"Al-Samara'i in his comment on this verse (an-Nahl:107) has quoted from Qurtubi's al-Jami the remark that the verse conveys an admonition that the wrath of Allah will be incurred by the apostate but there is no hint of any other punishment." [S. A. Rahman's Punishment of Apostasy in Islam, p. 47, referring to Nu'man 'Abd al-Razzaq al-Samara'i. Ahkam al-Murtadd fi al-Shari'at al-Islamiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon: Dar al-Arabiyyahya lil-Taba'at wal Nashr wal-Tauzi, 1968]

4. Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi [d. 1355 AD]
[Maliki scholar and author of Qur'anic commentary Bahrul Muhit]
"Ibn Hayyan, a well-known exegetist, has expressly mentioned a definite opinion that no apostate can be coerced into rejoining the Muslim community." [mentioned in S. A. Rahman, Punishment of Apostasy in Islam, India, Kitab Bhaban, 1996, p. 55]

5. Ibn al-Hammam al-Hanafi [14th century AD]
[Eminent scholar]

"There is no punishment for the act of apostay, for its punishment is greater than that, with God." [mentioned in S. A. Rahman, Punishment of Apostasy in Islam, India, Kitab Bhaban, 1996, p. 45, citing Sharh Fath al-Qadir with commentary by Chalpi on Fath al-Qadir, Vol. IV, pp. 388-9]

etc. etc. etc.

Abuz Zubair, thanks for the legal discourse but this does not at all negate the evidences I presented.

Muslims should always take criticism and benefit from it, so I thank you brothers and sisters.

However apostasy is so severe that an earthy punishment just won't do. Hell fire as you agree is the real penalty. Earthly punishments expiate sins, I don't think the apostate deserves that. Even is the apostates sins are not expiated by Allah through the death penalty, hell is still a better punishment. Crimes against man get earthly punishments, crimes against Allah deserve hell fire.

Again, I suggest to myself and to us all; instead of trying to prevent Muslims from leaving Islam out of fear of the death penalty we should rather as Muslims be trying to be the best examples we can be to people, especially to people with weak faith. That way they will remain Muslims through love of Allah and Islam, not through fear alone. Righteous fear is fine, but it must be accompanied by love as well.

I have not seen any example of Rasul Allah (Muhammad sas) killing someone for peaceful apostasy only. Treason and fighting against Islam are different matters.

I was advised to give one last post to list the names of more scholars who had this legal opinion on apostates, that’s the only reason I'm posting again.

May Allah protect us from rigid interpretations as well as slack ones, but guide us to “siratul-mustaqeem” (the middle and correct path). Amen.

[y-mughal]

Earthly punishments expiate sins, I don't think the apostate deserves that. Even is the apostates sins are not expiated by Allah through the death penalty, hell is still a better punishment. Crimes against man get earthly punishments, crimes against Allah deserve hell fire.


So the sin of apostasy can be possibly expiated through death even if the individual didn't repent?

[Abu_Abdillah2000]

So the sin of apostasy can be possibly expiated through death even if the individual didn't repent?

I don't think that is what the brother is implying. He is arguing that because apostasy is in a different category to sins expiated by worldly punishment, therefore the question of its expiation through worldly punishment does not apply.

[Abuz Zubair]

This is what I meant, you are simply referring to a bunch of modernists. You are NOT referring to al-Sarkhasi, or ANY of the classical scholars!

You are simply being duped, most probably knowingly, by modernists like Kamali an others.

For example, you conveniently copy and paste al-Sarkhasi's quote above, not knowing that he is purely discussing the Hanafi opinion that excludes ONLY THE WOMAN from the capital punishment, and NOT the men! Right in the beginning of the chapter he mentions that the apostate is killed for his apostasy.

You would know this if you were to refer to al-Mabsut yourself. And the same goes for the rest of the quotes you brought, which shows that you have none of the scholars to support you in your heretical views, except a bunch of house slaves like Kamali.

Now, if you are really someone who is capable of weighing up the proofs, you wouldn't let yourself be duped by these modernists so easily, and you would directly refer to the sources they are referring to and enlighten yourself with their academic dishonesty, which underlines their colonised mentality.

Besides, you have a habit of NOT answer my post in full.

[JayshAllah]

Can you guys be a bit softer with our dear brother in Islam?

[Abuz Zubair]

InshaaAllah I will try to... but it really freaks me out when people not only believe in such shaadh opinions, but actually make a YouTube video promoting it.

I guarantee, tomorrow they will be promoting Mut'a and Riba. And even then we'll be asked to soften up :)

[ibnmyatt]

Can you guys be a bit softer with our dear brother in Islam?

Assalamu Alaikum

Abuz Zubair is quite correct, and his annoyance (if that is what it is) is understandable. As a revert of now nearly nine years, I know how easy it is to mis-understand things and to be believe, in arrogance or ignorance or error, that one not only understands a complicated topic (or even a "simple" topic) but feels obliged to write or talk about it as if one did understand it, may Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala forgive us for our mistakes and guide us to and keep us on the Right Path.

The more one studies Deen Al-Islam, the more one realizes how much there is to learn, and the more one appreciates just how great our culture is - for we have a legacy, a tradition, of nearly one and half thousand years: a tradition of knowledge, of scholarship, that is unique and which can, InshaAllah, guide us and bring understanding of the beauty that is Deen Al-Islam.

As Brother Abuz Zubair has reminded us several times, we should think of the consequences of our words, of our desire to expound forth about certain matters - always fearing, always remembering, the judgement of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala which awaits for us and from which we cannot escape.


"Those who have experienced the beauty that is Al-Eeman are those who are content with Allah as their Rabb, with Al-Islam as their Way of Life, and with Muhammad (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) as their Messenger and Prophet." Narrated Al-'Abbaas bin 'Abd Al-Muttalib (Shahih Muslim)

[JayshAllah]

With rudeness and mockery you run the risk of turning people away from Islam altogether. Imagine being raised on the Day of Judgment with all your good deeds negated because you drove away someone from Islam.

No matter what, there are ways to word your sentences in such a way as to be soft.

[Abu_Abdillah2000]

With rudeness and mockery you run the risk of turning people away from Islam altogether. Imagine being raised on the Day of Judgment with all your good deeds negated because you drove away someone from Islam.

No matter what, there are ways to word your sentences in such a way as to be soft.

This is a misconception. Have you ever heard or read about how the Salaf used to behave towards innovators, even towards people who by today's standards would generally be considered by the majority of people to be acceptable?

Just the other day, I read that Ibn 'Umar or Ibn 'Abbas (can't remember which one) said regarding a certain person who spoke about Qadar that if he got hold of him, he would poke his eyes out and bite his nose off!

Or how 'Umar punished a man by hitting him over the head with a tree-branch until he bled, then when the man had healed, he gave him another bashing! And what was that man's crime? He asked "how did Allah "istawa" over the Throne?" (Imagine how 'Umar would react if he saw the situation of the contemporary "ash'aris"!!!)

These narrations are authentic and well-known, and there are plenty of other examples.

My point is that it is simply not true to say that harshness should never be used. If that were so, then you would have found the example of the Salaf to be much different from what it actually was.

[JayshAllah]

This is a misconception. Have you ever heard or read about how the Salaf used to behave towards innovators, even towards people who by today's standards would generally be considered by the majority of people to be acceptable?

Just the other day, I read that Ibn 'Umar or Ibn 'Abbas (can't remember which one) said regarding a certain person who spoke about Qadar that if he got hold of him, he would poke his eyes out and bite his nose off!

Or how 'Umar punished a man by hitting him over the head with a tree-branch until he bled, then when the man had healed, he gave him another bashing! And what was that man's crime? He asked "how did Allah "istawa" over the Throne?" (Imagine how 'Umar would react if he saw the situation of the contemporary "ash'aris"!!!)

These narrations are authentic and well-known, and there are plenty of other examples.

My point is that it is simply not true to say that harshness should never be used. If that were so, then you would have found the example of the Salaf to be much different from what it actually was.

I do not have enough knowledge to refute you on this matter. However, I think your reasoning involves selective analysis. Wallahu Aalim.

Never mind, carry on being rude Insha-Allah. Just not used to it.

[Abu_Abdillah2000]

I do not have enough knowledge to refute you on this matter. However, I think your reasoning involves selective analysis. Wallahu Aalim.

Never mind, carry on being rude Insha-Allah. Just not used to it.

I'm not saying we can be harsh ("rude" as you put it!) absolutely and all the time! All I'm saying is that it is mistaken to think that we must be "soft" all of the time and never harsh, and I gave some examples from the Salaf. So I would disagree with you that it was a case of "selective analysis". Anyway, if you yourself admit you don't know about this, then on what real basis can you claim that it was "selective analysis"?

I didn't realise that I might have come across as rude. If I did, then please forgive me.

[Nooristan]

May Allah protect us from rigid interpretations as well as slack ones, but guide us to “siratul-mustaqeem” (the middle and correct path). Amen.

Ajmaeen

Salamolaikom wr wb,Converted2Islam,achi,I read you're comments on here without comment till now,bro in all fairness you did not answer AbuZubair's questions to you on the topic,why?as I stated before I believe you to have erred on this matter and to be more frank,if you are now telling folks on youtube that what you say is the whole truth on this matter whilst not relaying the whole topic in all its shariah.

i.e,the better opinion should be taken against the lesser opinion etc,then I see this as a serious sin on you're part,as you're not giving muslim's and non muslim's the whole truth,in my humble opinion,you got a long way to go bro before you get to the level you think you're at,afwan habeeb,I have to call it how I see it bro,may we all fear Allah and His Punishment more and have hope in His Mercy, ameen............

[sunnih]

I'm not saying we can be harsh ("rude" as you put it!) absolutely and all the time! All I'm saying is that it is mistaken to think that we must be "soft" all of the time and never harsh, and I gave some examples from the Salaf. So I would disagree with you that it was a case of "selective analysis". Anyway, if you yourself admit you don't know about this, then on what real basis can you claim that it was "selective analysis"?

I didn't realise that I might have come across as rude. If I did, then please forgive me.

Akhi, perhaps to some you might have sounded as rude and this I do not know but not to me brother. Indeed it is a must that any bidah that starts springing out must be delt with harshly. It is not uncommon to treat bidahs in this way by the salaf and whoever has studied this topics knows this well. Indeed the point made by the brother that being harsh may be a reason to expel someone from Islam is not correct as there is a balance in the matter. First we are harsh to stop the spread of bidah as not to affect the rest of the new muslims and their magnitude takes precedense over the individual. However we do not neglect the individual and also pray for him and ask Allah to guide him to the right way and to make him steadfast in the deen but we can not leave the greater interest for the minor one. Imagine if the salaf were soft on the bidahs started by the zanadiqa and the munafiqeen. So we should indeed be harsh in condemnin the bidah and uncompramising. Yes if there is a way of softening the words and behaviour without damaging the warning we do use it and none of the brothers said anything against this but we should be vigilent and not neglective in these matters just like the salaf were. We should also remember that the islam that is being propagated by the modernists and the muslims that they are producing even if it is in quantity (which I doubt) are very loose in quality. Due to this type of islam portrayed by the modernists indeed we get such muslims that if shariah was to be applied they would be the very first to oppose it and even fight it. And Allah knows best.

[Converted2Islam]

Abuz Zubair: you said my opinion is "heretical" so may Allah forgive you of takfir on another Muslim. If you didn't mean that then you should perhaps clarify.

Abu Hannah: Akhi I'm kind of suprised at you to be honest. We are all sinners akhi, but for you to call me a "serious sinner" just for having a different opinion is in itself a serious sin. May Allah forgive you for claiming to know who is sinning and who is not.

The opinion that the apostate is not to be killed is slowly becoming a majority opinion. The European Council for Fatwa and Research inc Qaradawi, Ibn Bayyah, Juday' etc. gave that fatwa that it is only as an act of treason that apostasy is punishable by death. In the UK, treason during wartime is still punishable by execution! This view is actually implied by the hadith wording: "... and the one who leaves his deen AND abandons the community."
Ikhwan, like I said I'm not interested in this debate to be honest. I have no desire to answer any questions from Abuz Zubair until the brother can dialogue according to the manners and sunnah of Rasul Allah (sws) and until he can give me any prove the Prophet killed apostates for apostasy alone. People are a bit close minded, they have minds made up. They need to be soft and kind like Uthman ibn Affan (ra).

May Allah forgive you brothers who claim the great salaf scholars like Nakha'i and Thawri are heretical.

Here is a list of scholars from The European Council for Fatwa and Research who gave that fatwa:

1. Professor Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, President of ECFR (Egypt, Qatar)
2. Judge Sheikh Faisal Maulawi, Vice-President (Lebanon).
3. Sheikh Hussein Mohammed Halawa, General Secretary (Ireland)
4. Sheikh Dr. Ahmad Jaballah (France)
5. Sheikh Dr. Ahmed Ali Al-Imam (Sudan)
6. Sheikh Mufti Ismail Kashoulfi (UK)
7. Ustadh Ahmed Kadhem Al-Rawi (UK)
8. Sheikh Ounis Qurqah (France)
9. Sheikh Rashid Al-Ghanouchi (UK)
10. Sheikh Dr. Abdullah Ibn Bayya (Saudi Arabia)
11. Sheikh Abdul Raheem Al-Taweel (Spain)
12. Judge Sheikh Abdullah Ibn Ali Salem (Mauritania)
13. Sheikh Abdullah Ibn Yusuf Al-Judai, (UK)
14. Sheikh Abdul Majeed Al-Najjar
15. Sheikh Abdullah ibn Sulayman Al-Manee’ (Saudi Arabia)
16. Sheikh Dr. Abdul Sattar Abu Ghudda (Saudi Arabia)
17. Sheikh Dr. Ajeel Al-Nashmi (Kuwait)
18. Sheikh Al-Arabi Al-Bichri (France)
19. Sheikh Dr. Issam Al-Bashir (Sudan)
20. Sheikh Ali Qaradaghi (Qatar)
21. Sheikh Dr. Suhaib Hasan Ahmed (UK)
22. Sheikh Tahir Mahdi (France)
23. Sheikh Mahboub-ul-Rahman (Norway)
24. Sheikh Muhammed Taqi Othmani (Pakistan)
25. Sheikh Muhammed Siddique (Germany)
26. Sheikh Muhammed Ali Saleh Al-Mansour (UAE)
27. Sheikh Dr. Muhammed Al-Hawari (Germany)
28. Sheikh Mahumoud Mujahed (Belgium)
29. Sheikh Dr. Mustafa Cerić (Bosnia)
30. Sheikh Nihad Abdul Quddous Ciftci (Germany)
31. Sheikh Dr. Naser Ibn Abdullah Al-Mayman (Saudi Arabia)
32. Sheikh Yusf Ibram (Switzerland)
33. Dr. Salah Soltan (Egypt, USA)

Barak Allah fiq and thank Allah (swt) that I met Islam before I met Muslims. Amen.

[Brother_Mujahid]

The opinion that the apostate is not to be killed is slowly becoming a majority opinion.

So the entire ummah was upon misguidance for almost 1,300 years until Muhammad 'Abduh and his ilk "discovered" the truth of the matter?

[waziri]

Asalaualaykum akhi convert2Islam,

Brother in Islam, Islam is perfect muslims are not and that includes me and it includes you.

You said yourself that your opinion is becoming more and more accepted, so akhi what does that tell you?That it wasnt accepted in the past.

Just because something is becoming more accepted now it dosnt mean that we should try and water down this perfect beutifull deen just so it finds more acceptance with the kuffar.

The ruling on the apostate(death penalty) is clear like it you like hate it you hate it.

Akhi please look at what our brother Abu Zubair has explained to you objectively,Im sure the brother didnt mean to come across in a way which youve percieved to be harsh,its just that the brother has gheerah for the deen.

Anyway akhi ask Allah to show you the correct way,may he(subhana wa ta ala) guide you and me and all muslims aaaammeeeen.

wasalam

[Nooristan]

but for you to call me a "serious sinner" just for having a different opinion is in itself a serious sin.

Wrong and well below the belt brother,don't twist my words man or speak ill of me like that,I didnt or even attempt to call you a serious sinner anywhere on here or anywhere else on the net,cheap shot achi,you're the guy who chose to put one side of the coin with out putting the other on you're
you tube site,you're opinion is the weaker of the two,yet you lay out only you're opinion whilst you know that their is a stronger and more agreed opinion and you don't make that available to people? and let muslims fire of at other muslims,each one accusing the other of fanaticism on the matter of apostasy and that is not a sin,by Allah indeed it is and that makes you a sinner on this matter until you rectify it, you are confusing people and making the deen seem like an unclear matter,I have a sheilk on standby,any day you want to debate this,then attend sheperd's bush masjid, near or just after asr to speak to a sheilk versed in shariah,quran and hadeeth,the sheilk was a judge in an islamic court,im passing you my home and mobile number via p.m,so the ball is now in you're court bro,wa salamolaikom wr wb...



1.khwan, like I said I'm not interested in this debate to be honest. I have no desire to answer any questions from Abuz Zubair until the brother can dialogue according to the manners and sunnah of Rasul Allah (sws) and until he can give me any prove the Prophet killed apostates for apostasy alone. People are a bit close minded, they have minds made up.

2.They need to be soft and kind like Uthman ibn Affan (ra).

3.May Allah forgive you brothers who claim the great salaf scholars like Nakha'i and Thawri are heretical.

4.Barak Allah fiq and thank Allah (swt) that I met Islam before I met Muslims.

Bro,that was a really cheap couple a shots at muslims and AbuZubair on here,that was uncalled for man,and shows an islamic immaturity at the matters at hand on youre part.....come on be nice bro,thats what the dawah of islam is about,akhklaq......

[Nooristan]

Question:
I am happy to have found this website of yours. I was born a Muslim and I learned a lot of Islamic teachings after I reached adolescence. I am trying to understand my religion.
I have read in some of your answers on the issue of apostasy that the punishment for the apostate is to be put to death. But I have read on another website that the apostate who is to be put to death is the one who wages war on Islam (muhaarib).
I am more inclined towards the second opinion.
The reason for that is that I have friends who were born in Muslim families and who have Muslim names, but some of them do not know how to do wudoo’ or how to pray, but they acknowledge the Shahaadatayn.
Can we regard these people as apostates and thus put them to death?.

Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly:

The Muslim should not incline more towards one scholarly opinion rather than another just because it is in accordance with his whims and desires or his reasoning. Rather he has to accept the ruling based on evidence from the Qur’aan and Sunnah. It is essential to put the texts and rulings of sharee’ah before all else.

Secondly:

Apostasy (riddah) and going out of Islam are things that may be done in the heart, on the tongue or in one's actions.

Apostasy may take place in the heart, such as disbelieving in Allaah, or believing that there is another creator alongside Allaah, or hating Allaah or His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

Apostasy may take the form of words spoken on the tongue, such as defaming Allaah or the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

Or apostasy may take the form of outward physical actions, such as prostrating to an idol, mistreating the Mus-haf, or not praying.

The apostate (murtadd) is worse than one who is a kaafir in the first place.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said, refuting the pantheistic belief of the Baatinis:

It is well known that the kaafir Tatars are better than these (Baatinis), because the latter are apostates from Islam, of the worst type of apostates. The apostate is worse than one who is a kaafir in the first place in many aspects.

Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 1/193

Secondly:

Not every Muslim who falls into kufr is a kaafir and apostate. There are reasons why a Muslim may be excused and not judged to be a kaafir, for example: ignorance, misunderstanding, being forced, and making mistakes.

With regard to the first, a man may be ignorant of the ruling of Allaah, because he lives far from the Muslim lands, such as one who grows up in the desert or in a kaafir land, or has only recently come to Islam. This may include many of those Muslims who live in societies where ignorance prevails and knowledge is scarce. These are the ones concerning whom the questioner is confused as to whether they are to be judged as kaafirs and executed.

The second reason is if a person interprets the ruling of Allaah in a manner not intended by the Lawgiver, such as those who blindly follow the people of bid’ah (innovation) in their misinterpretations, such as the Murji’ah, Mu’tazilah, Khawaarij and the like.

The third reason is if an oppressor overwhelms a Muslim and will not let him go until he makes a blatant statement of kufr out loud in order to ward off the torture, when his heart is at ease with faith.

The fourth is when words of kufr come to one's lips without meaning it.

Not everyone who is ignorant about wudoo’ and prayer can be excused, when he seed the Muslims establishing prayer and praying regularly, and he can read and hear the verses on prayer. What is preventing him from praying or from asking about how it is done and what its essential conditions are?

Fourthly:

The apostate is not to be put to death immediately after he falls into apostasy, especially if his apostasy happens because of some doubt that arose. Rather he should be asked to repent and he should be offered the opportunity to return to Islam and resolve his doubts, if he has any doubts. Then if he persists in his apostasy after that, he is to be put to death.

Ibn Qudaamah said in al-Mughni, 9/18:

The apostate should not be put to death until he has been asked to repent three times. This is the view of the majority of scholars, including ‘Umar, ‘Ali, ‘Ata’, al-Nakhaii, Maalik, al-Thawri, al-Awzaa’i, Ishaaq and others. Because apostasy comes about because of doubt, and cannot be dispelled in an instant. Time should be allowed for the person to rethink the matter, and the best length of time is three days.

End quote.

The saheeh Sunnah indicates that it is essential to put the apostate to death.

Al-Bukhaari (6922) narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever changes his religion, put him to death.”

Al-Bukhaari (6484) and Muslim (1676) narrated that ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Mas’ood said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim who bears witness that there is no god except Allaah and that I am the Messenger of Allaah, except in one of three cases: a soul for a soul (i.e., in the case of murder); a previously-married person who commits zina; and one who leaves his religion and separates from the main body of the Muslims.”

The general meaning of these ahaadeeth indicates that it is essential to put the apostate to death whether he is waging war on Islam (muhaarib) or not.

The view that the apostate who is to be put to death is the one who is waging war on Islam (muhaarib) only is contrary to these ahaadeeth. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said that the reason why he should be put to death is his apostasy, not his waging war against Islam.

Undoubtedly some kinds of apostasy are more abhorrent than others, and the apostasy of one who wages war against Islam is more abhorrent than that of anyone else. Hence some of the scholars differentiated between them, and said that it is not essential to ask the muhaarib to repent or to accept his repentance; rather he should be put to death even if he repents, whereas the repentance of one who is not a muhaarib should be accepted and he should not be put to death. This is the view favoured by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him).

He said:

Apostasy is of two types: ordinary apostasy and extreme apostasy, for which execution is prescribed. In both cases there is evidence that it is essential 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.

Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 3/696

Al-Hallaaj was one of the most well known heretics who were put to death without being asked to repent. Al-Qaadi ‘Iyaad said:

The Maaliki fuqaha’ of Baghdad at the time of al-Muqtadir were unanimously agreed that al-Hallaaj should be killed and crucified because of his claim to divinity and his belief in incarnation, and his saying “I am al-Haqq [God],” even though he outwardly appeared to adhere to sharee’ah, and they did not accept his repentance.

Al-Shifa bi Ta’reef Huqooq al-Mustafa, 2/1091.

Based on this, it is clear that what the questioner says about the apostate not being killed unless he is waging war on Islam is mistaken, and the differentiation that we have quoted from Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah may dispel any confusion and make the matter clearer.

Waging war against Islam is not limited only to fighting with weapons, rather it may be done verbally such as defaming Islam or the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), or attacking the Qur’aan, and so on. Waging verbal war against Islam may be worse than waging war against it with weapons in some cases.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said:

Muhaarabah (waging war against Islam) is of two types: physical and verbal. Waging war verbally against Islam may be worse than waging war physically – as stated above – hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to kill those who waged war against Islam verbally, whilst letting off some of those who waged war against Islam physically. This ruling is to be applied more strictly after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Mischief may be caused by physical action or by words, but the damage caused by words is many times greater than that caused by physical action; and the goodness achieved by words in reforming may be many times greater than that achieved by physical action. It is proven that waging war against Allaah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) verbally is worse and the efforts on earth to undermine religion by verbal means is more effective.

Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 3/735

Fifthly:

With regard to not praying, the correct view is that the one who does not pray is a kaafir and an apostate. See question no. 5208.

And Allaah knows best.

Islam Q&A http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=14231&ln=eng&txt=Apostasy

[Umm Ahmed]

Uthman (ra) and any of the companions when they were soft, it was sanctioned by Quran and the Sunnah.

abandons the community

If apostacy is not abandoning the community then I dont know what is.

[Abuz Zubair]

Abuz Zubair: you said my opinion is "heretical" so may Allah forgive you of takfir on another Muslim. If you didn't mean that then you should perhaps clarify.The terms 'heresy', 'heretical' or 'heretic' are English terms that refer to the failure in confirming to orthodox views with respect to any subject, be it religion or otherwise. Knowing that you are a convert, you should have known what the English term means.

Perhaps, you ran out of ammunition, so wanted everyone else to cry tears over you by falsely portraying yourself as a victim of takfir.

While there are those whom you cannot argue with lest they perform takfir on you, there are also those whom you cannot argue with, lest they accuse you of takfir.

The opinion that the apostate is not to be killed is slowly becoming a majority opinion. The opinion never existed in the past. It was invented in recently times by modernists, and is therefore, a heresy, and of course, every heretic would wish that his heresy is accepted sometime in future.

The European Council for Fatwa and Research inc Qaradawi, Ibn Bayyah, Juday' etc. gave that fatwa that it is only as an act of treason that apostasy is punishable by death.I doubt Ibn Bayya would sign something like that, because he is more in a muqallid camp than a modernist one.

Besides, European Council for Fatwa and Research is simply a modernist brainchild, where modernists like al-Qaradawi and al-Juday' are the only influential figures, while the rest you've mentioned have hardly any role to play.

For instance, you listed 33 people on the council, yet, not all of them get to even read the fatwa or a decision passed by the council, let alone sign it! Abdullah b. Mani' for one wouldn't sign such heretical fatwas. Their names are just for showing off.

In the UK, treason during wartime is still punishable by execution! This is the problem! In the UK, we have such and such values, and therefore, Islamic values must also be similarly 'humane' and 'liberal'. Who gives two hoots about what happened in the UK during wartime when discussing Islamic legal issues, except a colonised modernist house slave?!

And what kind of a convert are you exactly? If you are a white European convert, then you've always been free! Why feel the need, now, to colonise your mind like the rest of the colonised house slaves you are following? And if you are black convert, then shame you for surrendering into slavery, again!

This view is actually implied by the hadith wording: "... and the one who leaves his deen AND abandons the community." Don't quote to me ahadeeth, when you have clearly shown over and over that you are too narrow-minded to engage in a fruitful discussion and look at the issue objectively. What's driving your thinking is NOT the zeal to follow the truth as depicted by the texts, but to aspire to be like the Jews and the Christians who, over the centuries, distorted their faith in order to please the monarchy or public pressure. You are simply following them into the lizard's hole.

People are a bit close minded, they have minds made up.Read this thread and speak for yourself. And if you ever decide to open your mind, you are always welcome to read this thread again and re-evaluate.

I don't know what you understanding by 'converting to Islam', but Islam actually means submitting oneself to the divine texts, and not making them submit to Western ideals and values.

May Allah forgive you brothers who claim the great salaf scholars like Nakha'i and Thawri are heretical. Liar. I told you in the previous post that they do not support your opinion. But instead of answer my post you ran away, which only underlines your narrow-mindedness.

Here is a list of scholars from The European Council for Fatwa and Research who gave that fatwaLiar. Show us the fatwa with signatures by all these people. I am pretty sure the only people to sign the fatwas are modernist house-slaves ibahiyyun.

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

With rudeness and mockery you run the risk of turning people away from Islam altogether. Imagine being raised on the Day of Judgment with all your good deeds negated because you drove away someone from Islam.

No matter what, there are ways to word your sentences in such a way as to be soft.

and with "fatawa" like that which is being probagated by the modernists we will end up with a generation of mulhideen.

[Umm]

Brother and sisters, don't be so harsh. I'm not saying Ikrimah is totally unreliable! I only said there were scholars who doubted his realiability. We have to take this into account.

Not only did you take it into account, you related false tales about him pronouncing takfeer on groups of people, some of which were the hujjaj.

You reject the hadith because you reject him as a trustworthy narrator. That is not a small matter. It is not true to say that "I'm not saying he is totally unreliable". Unless...what you are saying is that you'll reject hadiths on apostasy from him, because it suits you. However, if he narrated a hadith on a non controversial topic, you wouldn't have a problem with the isnad including him?

[abudurrah]

assalamu alaikum Converted2Islam,

Converted2Islam: this is what u said in your first post


Sister Umm said:

Volume 9, Book 89, Number 271:
Narrated Abu Musa:
A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu'adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle.

The above hadith doesn't mention treason at all.”

My Reply:

Ask yourself, is this a hadith from the Prophet (sas) or from Mu’adh bin Jabal? If a comapanion says something which is contrary to the Qur'an and Sunnah of Muhammad (sa