Sheikh Belal Assaad
“What is the true interpretation in regard to the rule of killing apostates? Some things aren’t meant to be taken to a literal context and I believe this is one of them. Logically, it wouldn’t make sense to kill apostates because this would take away any chance of self-redemption and in doing so condemn them to hell.”
Assalamu Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh
All praise and gratitude are due to Allah SWT. May the blessings and peace of Allah SWT be upon His Messenger PBUH.
Dear brother/sister,
Thank you for your question regarding apostacy in Islam.
Regarding the interpretation and literal context of the rule, let us answer this by first putting things into perspective.
Apostacy is defined in the modern English dictionaries as “an act of refusing to continue to follow, obey, or recognise a religious faith” (Merriam-Webster), among similar others.However, these definitions are given based on a secular framework and make absolute sense in a secular liberal world, which most countries operate by nowadays.
When thinking in a secular liberal context, apostacy becomes nothing more than a personal and private choice of changing one’s belief. There is no crime of breaking any binding contract with the state or a pledge of allegiance to them. The term used for this in liberalism is breaking the “social contract” (John Locke, Letter Concerning Toleration, 1689). Nor would there be a reason for it to mean a threat or treason against a state/country or its people. In a secular liberal framework, it makes sense to say that punishment of an apostate opposes human rights. In shari’ah law, it would also be considered against human rights because the conditions are absent. Just two of those absent conditions are: a ‘social contract’ with a legitimate Caliphate state and an appointed caliph, governor or judge in a court of law who is the only one whom can issue a sentence. In this case, Islam does not refuse a person if they decide to repent and return to Islam after leaving Islam, allowing self-redemption, because it would just be a matter of belief and not allied to that state in a particular way. No terms, no ramifications.
Yet even under the rules of liberalism, human rights are based on the social contract. So long as something is justified through a social contract it does not go against human rights, apostacy in that case is considered no less than high treason and punishment by the death penalty is conceivable (can be understood). These are the words of John Locke, known as the ‘Father of liberalism’, in his letter concerning ‘social contract and apostacy law’ when referring to an example of a Jewish state (Joh Locke, Letter Concerning Toleration, 1689).
Apostacy in Islam, however, has to do with publicly breaking the ‘pledge of allegiance (Bay’ah بيعة)’, which a Muslim made with the Caliphate state and its people, like the ones that existed in the known Islamic history. A Caliphate state is a political-religious state comprising the Muslim community like a body attached to it, its lands and peoples under its dominion. Anything that threatens the state, directly threatens the community, unlike any other state. By accepting Islam, it meant that a citizen had entered a ‘social contract’ with the state and its people along with its terms and conditions, knowing the legal consequence of consciously and deliberately turning away from Islam and returning to disbelief. They would automatically become ‘brothers and sisters in faith’ to all other Muslims, which is the closest bond of trust and reliance one can have with someone else, making many Muslims vulnerable from within. Converting to Islam and entering this pledge is a complete freedom of choice, with no compulsion or coercion upon the person. So, it has nothing to do with just ‘belief’.
Publicly entering Islam and then publicly apostatising, means an open rebellion against the state and its people. When a person apostatises, they become a serious threat to the state and the community, often returning to the ranks of the enemy and assisting them with inside information not afforded to other non-Muslim citizens living under the Caliphate state. The closest legal terminology to it is ‘treason’, or ‘highest treason’. Apostatising meant they became a military combatant. If such an act was left without serious penalty, the number of people entering and exiting Islam under an Islamic state would be catastrophic. Huge numbers from enemy ranks would cease such an opportunity, enter the Muslim community knowing their vulnerability due to the brotherhood/sisterhood system, then exist to aid the enemy more and more. Therefore, the shari’ah places a serious punishment upon apostates in order to ensure the safety and protection of both its Muslim community and the Islamic state.
The Ahadith regarding the death penalty for the apostate are numerous and authentic in both Bukhari, Muslim and others. It is also a unanimous consensus among all classical scholars and schools of thought. The only differences of opinion are on the application, such as how much time an apostate can be given to repent once charged.
Having said all of the above, regarding the second half of your question that “killing the apostate would take away any chance of self-redemption and in doing so condemn them to hell”:
While repentance and self-redemption are among the core teachings of Islam around which our religion is built, in rare cases, like apostacy under a Caliphate state (as explained above), the harm of the community outweighs the harm of the individual. The community and the state are given priority over the individual’s possible and unknown future redemption/repentance. Most of those who apostatised in the Prophet’s PBUH time never returned and became active participants in the ranks of enemy lines against the Muslim community. Only a small handful of them repented and the Prophet PBUH accepted their repentance without killing them. That was because they ran away and the Prophet PBUH could not capture them, but when they returned, they sought refuge with members of the Muslims, to which the Prophet PBUH gave them refuge under Islamic law and they had repented and renewed their pledge with the Prophet PBUH. Their escaping and returning was a blessing from Allah SWT upon them, and it was Allah SWT who gave them the chance. Otherwise, the interests of the community’s safety and protection of the state is prioritised.
Now, there is leeway for apostates under an Islamic state court of law. According to the majority of scholars of jurisprudence (i.e., schools of thought such as Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali, etc.), it is a must for the judge to give the apostate time to rethink and repent. If he/she repents, they are pardoned. If they publicly choose not to, they are executed. The Hanafi school of thought says it is not a must to give them time, but it is recommended. The reason for this is if the apostate had doubts about the religion or did not have someone to teach them properly from the beginning, among other possibilities. If he/she is lying and fakes their repentance, they are also pardoned because the shari’ah does not allow judging a person based on their inner hidden intentions until it is manifested and exposed.
Lastly, it is worth mentioning that the death penalty does not apply on the child, mentally insane person, a person forced to apostatise, a person whose life was threatened into entering Islam in the first place, and in the opinion of schools of thought (like the Hanafi school), a female apostate is not killed but imprisoned instead. Why? Because in their view she is not likely to become a military combatant, whereas it is likely for a man.
And Allah knows best.