Death for leaving Islam?
(Some Thoughts on Apostasy)
by
Sr. Ruqaiyyah
Waris Maqsood.
One of the things
most frequently stated as a matter that really puts people off being converted
to Islam is the belief that those who give up or leave Islam have to be put to
death. The crime it is claimed they have committed is apostasy. Therefore, it follows that Islam must be a very cruel
faith, one which it is dangerous to join.
It is not just a matter
of the harsh penal systems of the past – thanks to today’s media expertise,
people all over the world are soon able to know of instances, even in this day
and age in certain parts of the Muslim world, where people who vilified the
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in some way, or insulted Islam, or who daubed
anti-Islamic slogans, were either threatened with death or even actually
sentenced to death.
Although my own
point of view might upset these particular zealous defenders of Allah or His
noble messenger (pbuh), I nevertheless strongly contend that to react in
that way is very much to misunderstand Islam.
Jihad
misunderstood and confused with political issues
I feel it is a
very important matter to be discussed for a second reason. Our faith in Islam
is being confused, and devout people are being led astray, by zealots and
sectarian extremists who feel that the main thing a Muslim should be doing is jihad.
In their terms jihad does not mean the struggle to overcome anything
base in our characters, or to strive to bring about the common good of
humanity, but implies devoting their lives and energies to bringing about the
political triumph of Islam all over the earth, with the establishment of a new
caliphate, so that the earth may be ruled by Islam, and Muslims never be
obliged to be ruled again by laws and regulations or authorities or societies
who do not strive to implement the Qur’an and its laws.
I would like to
leave a full discussion of jihad over to another time, and here focus in
on the suggestion that Muslims of particular zealot opinions somehow have a
God-given obligation to out-argue, overpower, deal with and in effect dispose
of other Muslims - who are in their opinion weak brethren, corrupt brethren, or
who have given up certain aspects of Islam, or who are not totally committed to
political interference in order to bring about the overthrow of non-Muslim
temporal power. There is a huge danger that such zealots go from their common
practice of takfir (ie. slandering other Muslims who do not share their
opinions by calling them kuffar or unbelievers), to actually accusing
them of apostasy and bringing them in danger of execution at their hands.
The Dangers
following such accusations
The Qur’anic
verse 24.55 is often quoted:
‘Allah has
promised to those of you who believe and do good that He will most certainly
make them rulers in the earth, as He made rulers those before them, and that He
will most certainly establish for them their religion which He has chosen for
them.’
This is an important promise of power and authority to be granted to those who deserve to rule. It includes, of course, military power and political power. Every Muslim on earth must long for the day when noble people with strong faith, unerring justice and humble compassionate characters are elected as the rulers of the earth. It is indeed something to be aimed for, a wonderful ideal put before us by the promise of Allah Himself.
The next verse to
be frequently by these zealots is Surah 5.34:
‘Punish those
who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to make mischief in the
land, except those who repent before you have them in your power.’
At first sight,
this does look like carte blanche to label all non-Islamic society as Dar
al-Harb (House of War) because Islam has not yet been established there as
the norm and rule; and then to attack it by force of arms until Islam is
established successfully.
If a Muslim feels
that there are some Qur’anic laws which could never be followed in a secular
state, then the Muslim does have to do some soul-searching.
However, the
Qur’an does not require a Muslim living in a non-Muslim state to attack that
state, but to make a decision on how to abide therein. If the Muslim feels that
he or she is not personally having to make any compromises in their way of life
or beliefs, then they may choose whether to offer allegiance to that particular
government (which ideally will be an elected one so that all the citizens may
have power of election over those chosen to lead them), or they have the option
to leave that society and go live elsewhere.
This is what Allah
said (in Yusuf Ali’s translation): ‘O My servants who believe! Truly
spacious is My Earth: therefore serve ye Me (and Me alone)!’ 29.56)
Yusuf Ali added
the footnote that there was no excuse for any Muslims to plead that they could
not do good or were forced to do evil by their circumstances or surroundings,
or by the fact that they lived in evil times. We must shun evil and seek good,
and Allah’s Creation is wide enough for us to do that, providing we have the
will, the patience and the constancy to do it. It may be that we have to change
our village or city or country, our neighbours or associates, our habits or our
hours, our position in life or our human relationships or our callings. Our
integrity before Allah is more important than any of these things, and we must
be prepared for exile in all these circumstances.
‘When angels
take the souls of those who die in sin against their souls they say: "In
what (plight) were ye?" They reply: "Weak and oppressed were we in
the earth." They say: "Was not the earth of Allah spacious enough for
you to move yourselves away (from evil)?" Such men will find their abode
in Hell, what an evil refuge!’.(Surah 4.97).
So now, let us
turn to the question of the apostate.
An apostate, or
one who commits apostasy, is a person who having once belonged to a particular
faith, then gives it up and turns his or her back on it. Apostasy (ridda or irtidad) literally means 'turning back'. For Muslims, it is the sin
of deciding to give up Islam, or belief in Allah, after having previously been
a genuinely believing Muslim.
So firstly, apostasy
is not the same thing as a non-Muslim insulting, vilifying or abusing Islam.
Apostasy can technically only apply to a person who has genuinely once had
belief in Islam, but who has then given it up.
Secondly, apostasy
is not the same thing as hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is when a person claims to
believe in Islam, but actually does not do so. Hypocrisy could also apply to
someone who claims to be a Muslim, but does not live and act like a Muslim. To
be a Muslim implies being a person submitted to God’s will. It is not usually a
matter that can be fairly judged by human beings, but is best left to the
judgement of Allah – for no human has the knowledge of where the line should be
drawn, or the motivation or circumstances involved in individual cases. So, for
example, some Muslims feel that a Muslim who does not pray is a hypocrite, or
has even left Islam. The same might apply to Muslims who steal, or drink
alcohol, or seek sex outside marriage. The discussion is whether they have
actually left Islam, or are they simply just bad or weak Muslims? A pious
Muslim may deem that such people have left Islam, but Allah may judge that this
is not the case at all, and be compassionate. However, Muslims who claim they do say prayers but do not
actually do so, or who do claim to be Muslim but steal, lie or drink alcohol,
would certainly be hypocrites - for giving the wrong impression or making false
claims. But hypocrisy is not apostasy. If a person’s faith in Allah was not
really genuine to start with, they have not committed apostasy when they admit
that they do not really believe.
Next, an
apostate is not the same thing as a polytheist. A polytheist is not a
Muslim at all, but someone who believes in many different ‘gods’. Such a person
is also often referred to as a pagan.
So, bearing in
mind the actual meaning of apostasy, let us examine what the Qur’an actually
has to say about the penalties for it. The question of apostasy is mentioned
in no less than 13 verses in different chapters of the Qur'an, but not
once does Allah order any punishment to be carried out in this world. The
Qur'anic ayat all speak of punishment as God wills, in the Life to Come,
but not in this life (eg. 2:217, 3:86-91, 16:106). There, there may well indeed
be punishment for apostasy, but this is not a matter for human judges.
Let us take Surah
3:86-91, as possibly the most definitive of these passages: ‘How shall Allah guide those who reject faith
after they have accepted it and born witness that the Apostle was true and that
clear signs had come unto them? Allah does not guide unjust people. The
reward of such people is that upon them is the curse of Allah, the angels and
all humanity. They shall remain under it for ever; neither will their
punishment be lightened nor will they be given respite.’
So far, the verse is severe indeed. However,
even if only this section alone of the whole passage is quoted, it still does
not give permission for a human judge to order a death sentence for an apostate.
And then, comes the rest of the passage:
‘However, (for) those who repent after this and
mend their ways, then truly Allah is indeed Forgiving, Merciful. However,
those who disbelieve after their belief (acceptance of Islam) and then go on
adding to their disbelief, their repentance will never be accepted; because
they are deliberately choosing to go astray. As to those who are unbelievers
and die while they are still unbelievers, if they were to fill the whole earth
with gold and offer it as a ransom for each one of them, that will not be
accepted. These are the ones who shall have the painful punishment, and none
shall help them.’
It is
particularly important, I feel, that these verses were revealed while the
Prophet (pbuh) was ruler in Madinah, and had real political power, and was
clearly in the position of being able to carry out any punishment Allah had
laid down. Yet these verses speak only of punishment in the Hereafter, and
say nothing at all about punishment on this earth. There is certainly no
mention of a death sentence. If you note the words I have highlighted, it is
obvious that any such repentance would be impossible if the apostate had been
put to death!
The notion of giving
the death penalty for apostasy in itself actually runs completely contrary to
the clear Qur'anic order: 'Let there be
no compulsion in religion.' (2:256). The mediaeval scholars[1]
certainly disagreed on the issue of penalty for apostasy. The Shafi’i and
Hanafi schools ruled that irtidad
fell into the category of the hadd
punishments of Shari’ah law - that which was prescribed by Allah in either the
Qur'an, or sunnah, or both. The Hanbali school, however, never accepted that
apostasy was a matter of hadd, but of
ta'zir punishment. This means,
discretionary punishment - left to the discretion of the judges, and penalties
could range from reprimand, threat, boycott, fines, seizure of property,
imprisonment, flogging to the death penalty. An example of one great scholar
who took that point of view was Ibn Taymiyya.
The entire
question of hadd punishment only
applies in any case to a society which is governed by Shari'ah law. And even
then, one would have to consider whether the law should be applied reciprocally
- would non-Muslims have the same right in retaliation to impose the death
penalty on any non-Muslims who converted to Islam? If the answer to that is
'no', then the Muslims are operating double-standards, which would be
incompatible with the teaching of Islam.
Shari’ah law has
three main principles:
· It is only valid
for Muslims and does not apply to non-believers.
· The hudud are the limits (ie the extreme
penalties) for particular sins. There are many mitigating circumstances that
would influence the judge of the case to give some lesser penalty and not go to
the extreme limit.
· The hudud are not applied at all to those
who are of unsound mind, minors below the age of reason, and those under the
influence of khamr (some intoxicating
substance that clouds the mind and affects behaviour).
It is up to the
judge to decide if the ‘criminal’ is insane or evil. They may not simply assume
that because a person kills another, for example, that he or she is a wicked
murderer, or must be insane.
The biggest
problem with the hadd laws for Islam
comes when they are applied by over-zealous lawyers who carry out the extreme
penalties without proper knowledge of Islamic principles or sanctions. These
lawyers are undoubtedly Muslim, and so the faith of Islam becomes tarnished by
their application of laws they have misunderstood but carried out in good
faith.
It was my
privilege to have known an eminent high-court judge of Karachi who taught me
his own principle, based on the hadith: ‘It is far better to release a guilty
person than to punish an innocent one.’
The death penalty for apostasy only applies when compounded with murder and treason crimes
The six offences
that are generally recognised as under the hudud
are drinking alcohol, theft, robbery, illicit sexual intimacy, slanderous
accusations of unchastity, and apostasy, but the only occasions on which the
question of the death penalty for apostasy arises really comes under the murder
and treason laws.
In Islam, many
matters are left to the mercy of Allah. It is up to Him, and His judgement,
whether we shall be punished or not, and in what way, and for how long.
Thankfully, He does not judge us like human judges. If we were judged according
to what we deserved, there would not be left one living thing upon the earth.
(Surah 16:61).
The only two
verses which could be taken to support death for apostasy are generally taken
out of context
There are
actually only two verses in the Qur’an that could be used to support any
suggestion of the death penalty for apostasy, and all Muslim scholars who
believe this is the appropriate penalty must have based their decisions upon
these texts alone, and the hadiths associated with them.
The first passage
is:
‘If they turn renegade, seize them and slay
them wherever you find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from
their ranks.’ (from Surah 4:89).
This has been taken
out of a context concerning military action, in which soldiers of both sides
could certainly kill each other, before they had agreed on peace-terms. It does
not refer to a sentence in court. It is vital to read the full passage, and not
just this verse taken out of it. It reads:
‘They
(the renegades/apostates) – who had once been under a treaty of peace with
Islam but had now decided to turn and fight against it) but wish that you
should reject faith as they do and thus be on the same footing (as they): but
do not take friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (from
what is forbidden). If they turn renegade seize them and slay them wherever you
find them; and take no friends or helpers from their ranks, with the exception
of those who join a group between whom and you there is a peace-treaty, or
those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well
as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased He could have given them
power over you and they would have fought you: therefore if they withdraw from
you and do not fight you but (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then
Allah has opened no way (ie. not given you permission) for you (to war against
them). Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that
of their people: every time they are sent back to temptation they give in to
it. If they do not withdraw from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides
restraining their hands, seize them and slay them, wherever you get them; in their
case We have provided you with a clear argument against them.’ (Surah
4:89-91).)
The second vital
passage is:
‘The punishment for those who wage war
against Allah and His Messenger and strive to create mischief in the land is
death, or crucifixion, or the cutting off their hands and feet from opposite
sides, or exile from the land - based on the gravity of their offence’.
(Surah 5:33).
On its own, this
verse sounds horrendous, so let’s examine it. It is actually a passage
referring back to the murder of Adam’s son Abel by his brother Cain. The full
text is: ‘On account of that incident
(Abel’s murder of Cain) We ordained for the Banu Isra’il that whoever kills a
person, except as a punishment for murder or mischief in the land, it will be
written in his book of deeds as if he had killed all the human beings on the
surface of the Earth; and whoever will save such a life shall be regarded as if
he gave life to all the human beings on the surface of the Earth. Yet, even
though Our messengers came to them one after the other with clear revelations,
it was not long before many of them committed excesses in the land. The punishment for those who wage war
against Allah and His Messenger and strive to create mischief in the land is
death or crucifixion or the cutting off their hands and feet from opposite
sides, or exile from the land, based on the gravity of their offence. This will be their humiliation in this world
and in the Hereafter they will have grievous punishment, except those who
repent before you apprehend them; in such
cases you should know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful’. (Surah 5:
32-34).
Straight away it
will be seen that the death penalty is not the automatic and only penalty put
forward – lesser penalties are also suggested, and the revelation clearly
states that judgement is to be given according to the gravity of the offence.
Moreover, there is a legal loophole in the matter of the interpretation of the
phrase ‘to create mischief in the land’.
Yet, whichever
way one looks at these two verses, the penalty suggested is certainly severe.
What was the event in the background that called forth such severe words in the
Revelation? In fact, they referred to April 628/Shawwal 6, when a horrendous
atrocity against a humble Muslim shepherd occurred, and the most savage
retaliatory action ever recorded of the Prophet (pbuh) was ordered. He had the
hands and feet cut off some men who had murdered his shepherd, who happened to
be apostates from Islam; they were also blinded, and left to die of exposure.
(Abu Dawud 2052). It was a pretty terrible judgement. Why did the Prophet
(pbuh) order this to happen? What had these particular apostates done? And did
Allah approve?
The incident
concerned some men of Banu Qays of Bajilah, (in another version they are men of
Banu Uraynah from Ukal/Ak). These were men who had had a long history of
affiliation with the Jewish tribes of their region, and had frequently
intermarried with them and even accepted Judaism – but now they had converted
to Islam. They had gone to the Prophet (pbuh) seeking his help, for they were
suffering from an epidemic which had caused them to suffer enlarged spleens.
The Prophet (pbuh) did not cure them as if by magic, or recommend a specific
medicine, or even suggest they should pray for healing to Allah the only True
Granter of Health, but instead sent them off to his herd of fifteen fine
milk-camels which was being guarded by his herdsman Yasar. Camel-milk was rich
in nutrients, and camel’s urine was actually used regularly as a Bedouin folk
medicine to cure internal and digestive troubles. Sure enough, these men drank,
rested and found themselves recovered. However, instead of being grateful, they
repaid the Prophet’s (pbuh) hospitality by falling for the temptation offered
by his top-quality camels which were only being guarded by one man. Not content
with mere murder, they proceeded to torture and kill the unfortunate Yasar in a
most appalling manner, cutting off his hands and feet, stabbing out his eyes
with sharp thorns, and piercing his tongue, before making off with the
Prophet’s (pbuh) camels.
The Prophet
(pbuh), shocked and angry, sent Kurz b. Jabir, an expert tracker, in hot
pursuit with twenty Ansar. They caught up with the murderers before the sun
rose next day. (Ibn Sa’d 2.115, Zad al-Ma’ad 2.122, Ibn Kathir 3.243, Ibn Ishaq
p.678).The Prophet (pbuh) chose to have them put to death not by the Islam they
had rejected, but following the Mosaic Law of Leviticus 24:19-21, in a similar
manner to their crime.
‘When a person
causes mutilation to another, as he has done it shall be done to him, fracture
for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has mutilated, so shall he be
mutilated. He who kills a beast shall make it good, and he who kills a human
shall be put to death.’ (Leviticus 24. 19-21).
In fact, the
Prophet (pbuh) had been so affected by the appalling death of Yasar that he
realised he had been affected by a terrible and uncharacteristic anger, and
bitterly regretted the punishment he had meted out upon these men. It was not
long before the angel brought him a revelation to guide him, one of the most
important verses in Islamic Law. ‘The
recompense for an injury is indeed an injury proportionate to it;’ said
Allah through the angel. ‘But if (the wronged) people can forgive and make
reconciliation they shall be rewarded by Allah.’ (Surah 42:40).
The Prophet (pbuh) then swore that he would never again order such a brutal punishment – and in all his future speeches he did indeed urge compassion instead of exemplary punishment. (Ibn Kathir 3.243 from Qatada).
Obviously, if the
death penalty was the compulsory retaliation ordained by Allah, the Prophet
(pbuh) could never have reacted as he did. Yet, all the hadiths used by those
who support the death penalty for apostasy refer back to this one unpleasant
incident, without referring to any of these details that should convince the
faithful that th4 death penalty was not the compulsory retaliation ordained by
Allah.[2]
Whenever a hadith
mentions punishing apostasy with the death penalty, it is very important that
the relevant occasion or circumstances to which the hadith refers is fully
explained. Once the explanation of the background is given, it can easily be
seen that the person convicted of apostasy had
also committed murder, or treason, or had joined the enemy forces in order to
literally and physically fight against the Prophet (pbuh) and Islam. Thus, the
death penalty was not for their apostasy as such, but for their attendant
crimes and acts of treason – and for treason and murder the death penalty was
certainly deemed to be judicially appropriate. In other words, a death
sentence for apostasy was only to be considered when combined with a capital
offence. This is the background to the harsh verse in surah 5:33. The
various penalties would depend on the judge, and the gravity of the offence. ‘This
will be their humiliation in this world,’ stated Allah, ‘and grievous
punishment in the Hereafter – except for those who repent before you apprehend
them; in such a case, you should know that Allah is forgiving and merciful.’
If an apostate has
genuinely repented, there is no need to pursue them in order to inflict any
punishment whatsoever upon them. However, a zealot lawyer might argue that if
the repentance only came after a person’s arrest, there remained the problem of
how to know whether this supposed repentance was genuine or not? It could be
argued that it should not be recognised as genuine, for obvious reasons.
However, if we are to follow the sunnah, we should remember that the
Prophet (pbuh) took the view that in any case of doubt, one should always give
the benefit of the doubt and not be harsh. Thus, when his ‘grandson’ Usamah
ibn Zayd captured and killed the apostate Mirdas ibn Nuhayk after the latter
had shouted out his declaration of faith at the last moment to get himself ‘off
the hook’, Usamah felt he had done the right thing, but the Prophet (pbuh) did
not support him. Instead, he rebuked him severely and asked Usamah if he had
cut him open and had a look at his heart to see whether he was telling the
truth or not? (Bukhari. 5.568, Ibn Ishaq p.667, Ibn Sa’d 2.149, Ibn Kathir
3.301, 4.315).
Apostasy is not a
matter that applies to non-believers at all. It only applies when a
person has been a believing and practising Muslim, and then chooses of his or
her own freewill to give up that belief.
Rejecters of a
once-believed faith are apostates –
but there are many reasons in life why people change their thoughts and reasons
and conclusions, and decide to give up or part company with an old faith,
and/or to adopt a new faith. Sometimes the reasons for the decision are for
convenience. Sometimes it might be to please another, or conversely to annoy
another and cause distress. It might also be for political purposes, or for
purposes of advancement in a particular field or career. Usually, it is
honestly because that particular belief no longer seems valid, or reasonable,
or relevant, or possible, or likely, or in keeping with scientific knowledge.
The seeker after truth follows what seems reasonable to him or her at the time,
and if a person’s judgement is clouded by lack of education or incomplete
knowledge, they are only doing their best to make their best judgement in the
circumstances – they have not committed any capital offence.
Those who
apostasized were only condemned to death if they took up arms and physically attacked
Islam, and again, only until they repented. If a person simply left Islam,
this was a matter between the apostate and Allah, and the punishment, if any,
was as God willed, in the Life to Come. It was not for a human to play judge -
judgement was for Allah alone - and He stated clearly that there should be no
compulsion in religion.
The following is
a very vital verse of the Qur’an:
‘If it
had been the will of your Lord that all the peoples of the world should be
believers, then all the people of the earth would have believed! How can you,
then compel humankind against their will to believe? It is not possible for
anyone to believe except by the permission of Allah, and He showers ignominy on
those who do not use their common-sense. Tell people: ‘Look at that which
exists in the heavens and the earth.’ For signs and warnings are not reaching
those people who have no belief.’ (Surah 10:99-101. See also Surah 2:256).
As regards the
insistence of some pious persons that the death penalty should be
imposed for leaving the faith, or vilifying Allah, or speaking abusively about
Allah or his Messenger (pbuh), this was never the case. The Prophet
(pbuh) himself was frequently abused and hurt and jeered at, but exhorted his
followers going through equal or even greater suffering than himself to stand
firm and accept the unpleasantness with patience, hating the evil, but never
hating the people who had been overtaken by evil. The death penalty should only
be required for cases of treason or murder. Treason implied that those who had
once accepted the rule of Islam in an Islamic country had then not merely
turned against it (which anyone might do – and be pitied for this tragedy
rather than attacked), but that they had actively led physical attacks upon it
and co-erced others into doing the same, which ended up in lives being lost.
Surah 7:168: ‘We broke their unity as a nation and
dispersed them into different communities all over the earth - some of them are
righteous and others are the opposite - We tested them with both blessings and
misfortunes so that they might turn to the Right Way.’
Faith is like
love – it is not something that can be forced, no matter how much one might
earnestly desire to have it.
You cannot say -
(if you are a sane person) – I will sit down on this spot and not move until I
have fallen in love with some person. It does not make sense. It might never
happen, and you would have wasted your life. Similarly, you cannot reasonably
say – I will sit down in this spot and not move until I believe in God. You
might be one of the very lucky few to whom some sort of amazing divine epiphany
is granted – angels appear, you hear a voice from heaven, heavenly music, a
cloud appears that seems to be shrouding a divine presence. But there is always
catch 22 – if this sort of experience did
happen to you, how would you know that what you were experiencing really was
from God, and not the wiles of some Satanic influence instead? Or perhaps
something in your mind might have gone wrong, and you suddenly begin to suffer
from delusions and hallucinations. This was precisely what the Prophet himself
(pbuh) thought. You see, you will never really believe in something unless you
believe in it; it is not a matter that can be proved, or forced.
The realm of al-Ghayb, the Unknowable, really is
beyond our capacity to understand and know. We are entirely dependent upon God
choosing to reveal something of Himself to us. It is not something we can
organise from our own desires.
And then, even
after we have believed something, other circumstances might happen that take
away that belief. Something which seemed perfectly reasonable to us at one
moment might suddenly become unreasonable. Beliefs change; they alter according
to our state of knowledge, inspiration, understanding, and so forth.
So, if a person
who has once believed in Allah and been accepted in the fold of Islam then
chooses to leave that fold and reject belief, that person has become an
apostate – but should they then be put to death for it?
The Prophet’s
(pbuh) duty was only to give the Message
It does not seem
in keeping with reason, with compassion, with what is known about the character
and wisdom and generosity of either God or His Prophet (pbuh). He was never
ordered to use force:
‘Your duty is only to convey the message.’
3.20, 5.92,99.
‘The delivery of the message is the duty for
you, and the judgement is the duty for Us.’ 13.40.
And the most
important verse of all:
‘Even if they turn away, you are responsible
only for the delivery of the clear message.’ 16.82.
Faith is not complete
when it is followed blindly or accepted unquestioningly. Human beings need to
build faith on well-grounded convictions beyond any reasonable doubt and above
uncertainty. If you try to force a belief on someone, the attempt is really
ridiculous, and can only work through tyranny and aggression, and making the
person forced frightened of the consequences of upsetting you. The way of dawah in Islam is to make as clear as
possible the evidences and proofs – but every person must be allowed to believe
or disbelieve what they want. Nowhere does Allah give permission to force or
kill people who refuse to accept the message. Let us see His word again: ‘The delivery of the message is the duty for
you, and the judgement is the duty for Us.’ 13.40. Allah is the Judge. It
is for Him to decide, in ultimate terms, what the fate will be of those who
reject the message. It is up to us to show that everything in the message is
good, and promotes goodness and happiness and progress and peace. Allah never
asked anyone to promote anything that was evil, or harmful, or hurtful
verbally, physically, mentally or morally. The message was and is all good.
We may refer to
the case of Umar’s relatives Hisham and the brothers Ayyash and Salamah, who
were all incarcerated in the house of Ikrimah, the son of the Prophet’s (pbuh)
bitter enemy Abu Jahl. There, they were horribly tortured, despite the
Prophet’s (pbuh) pleas for their release. (Muslim 1428). Abu Jahl knew only too
well how his cruelty upset the Prophet (pbuh), and not only insulted him by his
pointed refusal to co-operate, but also highlighted the Prophet’s (pbuh)
helplessness to defend them. The unfortunate Hisham and Ayyash both decided to
give up Islam and thus became apostates. Shortly afterwards, the Prophet (pbuh)
received this vital revelation:
‘Say: ‘O My servants who have transgressed against
your own souls! Do not despair of the mercy of God, for He forgives all sins,
and is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Turn to your Lord (in repentance) and bow
to His (will) before the Penalty comes upon you; for after that it is too late
to be helped.’ (Surah 39:53-54).
These words from
Allah ar-Rahman ar-Rahim thus assured
any who had left Islam that Allah would certainly forgive those who repented
and embraced Islam once again.
Umar swiftly
wrote down a copy of the text and had
it sent to them, and they took the faith once more. This is a vital text for
those who believe that all people who give up Islam are to be executed. The
death penalty in Islam for apostasy is only for those who also commit murder
and treason – not merely for giving up Islam.
Another case was
that of Abdullah b. Sa‘d, the milk-brother of the notable companion Uthman b.
Maz’un. This Abdullah became one of the Prophet’s (pbuh) most trusted scribes
responsible for recording the revelations accurately. Later, he did indeed
become one of the very few Companions who apostasized, and worse - went on to
make the highly serious claim that the Prophet (pbuh) used to invent his
revelations. If there had been a definite Qur’anic order to give the death
penalty for recantation, then surely this was a prime example of a man who
would not have been forgiven. However, after the capture of Makkah he was one
of those who reconverted to Islam, and even if this reconversion was only out
of prudence and fear and not genuine at all, he was pardoned on Uthman’s
intercession. His pardon must be an extremely important precedent. It shows
beyond question that Islam does not teach that people who leave the
faith should be put to death. (Ibn Sa'd 2.174, Ibn Kathir 3.402).
The Prophet
(pbuh) was totally opposed to attempting to force people to accept what they
did not wish to. Mu’adh b. Jabal, a companion who had a reputation for
excessive fervour, was one of those given a position of authority as a governor
and preacher. He was specifically instructed by the Prophet (pbuh) to ‘make
things easy for people and do not put them into difficulty. Talk to them
pleasantly, and not in a manner that might repel them. Reconcile, and do not
alienate.’ One day Mu’adh saw a Jew who had converted to Islam and then
apostasized, and had not only not
been put to death (as some zealots might have wished), but had been held in
safe custody for some three months by other Muslims who tried to make him
change his mind back again. Mu’adh declared that he would not dismount until
the man had been executed; and he was duly beheaded. (Muslim 4490, also in
Bukhari and Abu Dawud). Mu’adh had taken a totally different attitude towards
the apostate from the other Muslims who had him in custody – despite the
Prophet’s (pbuh) warning to be moderate. The Prophet (pbuh) had obviously known
Mu’adh needed this warning, but unfortunately in this case it was not heeded.
The Prophet’s
(pbuh) attitude was revealed early in his Madinah period by an incident
concerning one of his leading enemies, Suhayl, the chief of the Banu Amir, who
had been captured in the Battle of Badr. He was a man who had a cleft lower
lip. Umar threatened to pull out his two front teeth too. ‘Then his tongue will
hang out, and he will never be able to speak against you again!’ The Prophet
(pbuh) gave a reply which was so revealing of his modest, compassionate and
wise nature. ‘I will certainly not mutilate him,’ he replied, ‘for if I did, surely
Allah would mutilate me, even though I am His Messenger. Think - it may be that
one day he will make a stand for which you will not be able to find fault with
him.’ (Ibn Kathir 2.324 from Ibn Ishaq). Suhayl lived to become a great Muslim
hero, in the Battle of Yarmuk. The
Prophet’s (pbuh) forward-looking and generous attitude is an important sunnah
for those zealots who regard non-Muslim territories (such as ‘the West’ –
whatever that may mean) as Dar al-Harb (House of War), full of enemies
who need conquering. The Prophet (pbuh), on the contrary, saw such territories
as Dar al-Dawah (House of Missionary Preaching), full of potential
converts.
And such changes
were and are always possible. ‘Allah has
never changed the blessings which He has bestowed on a people until they
themselves changed the condition of their souls; verily Allah hears all and
knows all.’ (Surah 8:53).
May Allah bless
you, wasalaam, Ruqaiyyah.
[1] There are many different schools of thought in Islam. The most important Sunni ones from the third century after the life of the Prophet (pbuh) were the Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali and Shafi’i. The main Shi’ite school of thought is the Jafari.
[2] Abu Zinad related that it was when the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) cut off (the hands and feet of) those who had stolen his camels and had their eyes put out by fire, that Allah reprimanded him for that (action), and revealed: ‘The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Apostle and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is execution or crucifixion.’ Abu Dawud 2052, referring to Surah 5:33. Two things can be seen immediately - the hadith does not quote the full verse, and the point of the hadith was to indicate the origin of this particular revelation, an occasion on which the Prophet (pbuh) was reprimanded for going beyond the allowed limit of punishment. Abdullah ibn Abbas narrated that when that passage was revealed, it referred to polytheists, and if any of them repented before they were arrested, it would not prevent from inflicting on him the prescribed punishment which he deserved (because of the murders actually committed). Abu Dawud 2053.