But saying that this verse was abrogated is untenable. The abrogation of verses cannot be proved unless there is a crystal clear statement reported to have been made by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), or one of his Companions, saying, "Verse number so-and-so has been abrogated by verse number so-and-so."

The abrogation of verses cannot be proved by reports of exegetes, or by personal reasoning without clear authentic statements in this respect or without there being obvious contradiction between two verses. This is because the abrogation of verses indicates that a ruling derived from a certain verse fell into abeyance, while another ruling on the same question in another verse was laid down during the lifetime of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon). This entails that the abrogation of a certain verse is something that is subject to both historical authenticity and sound transmission from the Prophet or his Companions. Abrogation, above all, is not subject to collective or personal reasoning (ijtihad) or juristic deduction.

However, Imam Ash-Shafi`i wrote, "What has been abrogated from Allah's Book is proven as such only by verses from Allah's Book itself. The Sunnah cannot abrogate Allah's words. It only asserts what is revealed point-blank in Allah's Book and explains in detail what is mentioned therein in general."

But scholars of usul al-fiqh, other than Ash-Shafi`i, hold that authentic hadith may abrogate (some) verses of the Qur'an.

Ash-Shafi`i supported his view by writing the following:

The scholars who differ with Ash-Shafi`i on this point have counter-evidence for their view, but it will not be tackled here.

Hence, this verse is still in effect and has not been abrogated. This fact also goes in line with the other recurrent verses in the Qur'an that stress man's freedom of thinking, opinion, and choice. This indicates that these are fundamental principles of Islam that cannot be altered or abrogated.

However, it is worth mentioning that Muslim jurists do not depend primarily on the verses of the Qur'an on apostasy in determining the type of punishment to be inflicted upon apostates. Their principal evidences in this respect are the hadiths of Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). They only quote these verses in their studies to clarify the chastisement in the hereafter that Almighty Allah warned apostates against. This drives us to tackle the ruling of apostasy in the Sunnah in light of the above-established principle that says, "Let there be no compulsion in religion," as well as in the framework of the other facts derived also from the Sunnah, as will be clarified in the following points:

Every book on Islamic jurisprudence makes reference to the Qur'anic verses that deal with apostasy and the chastisement that Allah Almighty warned apostates against. These books base their conclusions about the punishment for apostasy upon several hadiths of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). The three most quoted hadiths by Muslim jurists in this respect are the following:

One hadith tells about the people from `Ukal and `Uraina who became apostates as follows:

It was reported that eight people belonging (to the tribe of) `Ukal came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) in Madinah, but they found its climate unsuitable for them; they complained about this to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), who said to them, "If you so like, you may go to (the fold) of our camels along with our shepherd, and make use of their milk and urine." They did so and were all right. They then fell upon the shepherd; killed him and drove away the camels of the Prophet (may peace be upon him). This news reached Allah's Messenger; so, he sent them on their track and they were brought and handed over to him. He (peace and blessings be upon him) had their hands and feet cut off, their eyes put out, and then they were thrown on the stony ground until they died. (Ibn Malik)

In some other versions of the hadith, it was reported that there were other shepherds and that the apostates killed and mutilated them.

Some scholars conclude from this hadith that the punishment which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) inflicted upon those people is the penalty prescribed for apostates. Hence, they classified the hadith under categories dealing with combatants and apostates and with combatants among disbelievers and apostates. Such headings led some orientalists to claim that Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) used to force people to convert to Islam by torturing those who apostatized from it.

But the opinion of the majority of scholars, with which I also agree, is that the people referred to from `Ukal and `Uraina were not killed merely because they apostatized from Islam, but because they had been combatants (against Muslims). In this regard, Ibn Taymiyah wrote the following:

In addition to apostasy, those people committed murder and stole others' properties, and thus became brigands and fought against Allah and His Messenger.

Hence, the hadith concerning the people of `Ukal and `Uraina cannot be taken as proof of the opinion that the punishment for apostasy is the death penalty, as the crime of those people was not only apostasy, but it also included fighting against the Muslims. It may be also that they were punished by death in retaliation for what they had done to the shepherds.

As for the mentioning the word "apostasy" and "apostates," in some books of Hadith when they report the incident of the people from `Ukal and `Uraina, it was in the context of explaining what those people had exactly done, as they had both apostatized from Islam and fought against the Muslims. Hence, the inclusion of their apostasy in the hadith does not mean that the punishment inflicted upon them should apply to every apostate.

There is another hadith, reported by Ibn Mas`ud, that describes the three cases in which it is lawful to shed the blood of a Muslim. According to this hadith, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) made it clear that the blood of a Muslim is not lawful to shed unless he is one of the following three: "A married adulterer, someone killed in retaliation for killing another, or someone who abandons his religion and the Muslim community.'' The first two cases here have nothing to do with apostasy or its punishment. It is the third case — someone who abandons his religion and the Muslim community — that according to many jurists applies to apostates. Accordingly, by virtue of this authentic hadith, they reached a judgment regarding the punishment for apostates — namely, that they deserve the death penalty.

But this explanation is controversial among Muslim jurists. For example, Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy upon him) maintained that when the Prophet said, "Someone who abandons his religion and the Muslim community," he was describing the brigand who fights against Muslims, not the person who is only an apostate.

Ibn Taymiyah supported his view by quoting another version of the same hadith in which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said the following:

The blood of a Muslim who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah is not lawful to shed unless he be one of three: a married person who commits adultery, in which case he is to be stoned to death; or someone who goes out waging war against Allah and His Messenger, in which case he is to be killed, crucified, or expelled from the land; or someone who killed another, in which case he is to be killed in retaliation. (Abu Dawud and `A'ishah)

Based on this hadith, Ibn Taymiyah said that the second category here stands for the same one referred to (in Ibn Mas`ud's version) as "someone who abandons his religion and the Muslim community;" as abandoning the Muslim community is achieved by waging war against Allah and His Messenger.

If this view (of Ibn Taymiyah) is correct, which I consider it to be so, then the reasons mentioned in Ibn Mas`ud's version according to which the blood of a Muslim may be shed are the same as those mentioned in `A'ishah's version of the same hadith. Hence, the person who abandons his religion and the Muslim community according to Ibn Mas`ud's version of this hadith is meant to be the person who apostatizes from Islam and then fights against Allah and His Messenger, not the person who merely becomes an apostate. Based on this, the ruling on apostates who are not involved in fighting against the Muslim community is not indicated in this hadith.

In other words, this hadith does not state the ruling concerning those who merely apostatize from Islam; but states the ruling on those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and it is established that the latter must be killed, be they Muslims or non-Muslims. Hence, it is not valid to base the view that the punishment for apostasy is the prescribed death penalty upon the Prophet's permission to shed the blood of the Muslim "who abandons his religion and the Muslim community" as mentioned in this hadith.

Another hadith is the one reported by Ibn ` Abbas about killing those who change their religion as follows:

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have said, "Whoever changes his religion, then kill him." (Ibn `Abbas)

Furthermore, proponents of this view argue that the generalization drawn from this hadith (with regard to the word "religion"), which extends to whoever changes his religion, whatever be this religion, cannot be accepted. This, according to them, entails that if a Jew converted to Christianity or a Christian converted to Islam, he or she would be judged by the ruling stated in the hadith, and thus be killed by virtue of the prescribed penalties of Shari`ah.

In effect, jurists do not say that the ruling stated in this hadith applies to whoever changes his religion, whatever it may be. In this regard, Imam Malik said the following:

That does not refer, and Allah knows best, to those who convert from Judaism to Christianity or from Christianity to Judaism. Whoever converts from Islam to another religion is the one who is referred to [in the hadith], and Allah knows best.

This is valid because when the word "religion" is meant to refer to the true religion (as in this hadith), it thus refers to Islam; and hence, changing religion, according to this hadith, means changing Islam to another belief.

There is no scholarly difference over this view except on the part of the Zahiris, and some Shafi`i scholars. Ibn Hazm clarified the viewpoint of the former when he stated the following:

He is not to be left without punishment; either he is to embrace Islam or be killed.

As for the Shafi`i scholars who see that disbelievers who convert to another kind of disbelief are also to be killed, their view is reported by Al-Hafiz ibn Hajar in his Fath Al-Bari and by Ibn Hazm in his Al-Muhalla.

According to the majority of scholars, the preponderant view is that this hadith was not meant to make a generalization (with regard to the word "religion"); for had it been so, it would have also included those who convert from a religion other than Islam to Islam. And all agree that this is not what to the hadith refers to. The majority of scholars support their view that the hadith does not apply to converts from a religion other than Islam to another kind of disbelief by saying the following:

Hanafi scholars narrow down another generalization understood from the hadith (with regard to the word "whoever"), as they say that female apostates are not included here and thus should not be killed. According to them, the ruling stated in the hadith is confined to male apostates. They argue that women usually do not participate in fighting; and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade the killing of women, and since the prohibition here is general, it extends to all women, including women who apostatize from Islam.

The reason why male apostates should be killed according to Hanafi scholars is that they may fight against Muslims on the side of disbelievers or polytheists; but this is not likely to happen in the case of female apostates, and hence they should not be killed.

Some contemporary Hanafi scholars have counted the categories of apostates who are excluded from the ruling stated in the hadith that says, "Whoever changes his religion, then kill him." According to them, there are fourteen kinds of apostates. Hence, it may be said that those scholars narrow down the generalization of the hadith (with regard to the word "whoever") by means of the other evidences they cite in favor of not killing these fourteen categories of apostates.

Anyhow, restricting or narrowing down the generalizations understood from the hadith, whether they are agreed-upon or controversial among scholars, does not lead to the conclusion referred to above, which says that Islam does not state any punishment for apostasy.

It seems that the apologetic spirit that overwhelmed the followers of this view is what led them to this conclusion. But I hereby proclaim that I do not agree with them. On the contrary, I approve of the opinion of the majority of Muslim jurists that apostasy is a crime in Islamic Law. However, what I do wonder about in this regard are the following questions: What kind of punishment does Islam lay down for this crime? And does the hadith that says, "Whoever changes his religion, then kill him" state that the punishment for apostates is the death penalty? Or is there a possibility of a different kind of punishment?

I clarified at the beginning of this study that the Qur'an did not specify a worldly punishment for apostasy; it merely warned against a punishment thereof in the hereafter. I have also pointed out that Muslim jurists cite authentic hadiths to prove their opinion on the punishment to be inflicted upon apostates, and that they, in general, hold that apostates are to be legally killed for their crime of apostasy by virtue of the Prophet's hadith that says, "Whoever changes his religion, then kill him."

In spite of the apparent tendency in Islamic jurisprudence to narrow the scope of the applicability of the prescribed penalties and expand the applicability of the juristic principle that "prescribed penalties are to be fended off for the least occurrence of suspicion," one notices that there is a different disposition in this respect regarding the crime of apostasy and its punishment. There is a growing tendency nowadays to incriminate apostates and consequently judge them as deserving of the death penalty.

Although we admit that apostasy is a crime, I doubt that the penalty that Islam states for it is capital punishment. I further doubt the inclusion of this form of punishment as a legal penalty prescribed by Shari`ah. The late Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltut also held the same doubts, which he expressed in one of his writings. After displaying the jurists' views on the punishment for apostasy and their difference over putting into effect the Prophet's hadith about killing apostates, Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltut wrote the following:

There may be a different viewpoint over the question (of apostasy), especially when noticing that many scholars see that the prescribed punishments are not proved by hadiths ahad (ahad is the hadith narrated by people whose number does not reach that of the mutawatir) and that disbelief per se is not a sufficient reason for the legal killing of a disbeliever; the cause permitting the legal killing of a disbeliever is his fighting and hostility against Muslims and attempting to lure them away from their religion. In addition, many Qur'anic verses clearly renounce compulsion in religion.

The strongest evidence cited by jurists to prove that the punishment of apostasy is the death penalty is the imperative mood (in the second clause) of the Prophet's hadith that says, "Whoever changes his religion, then kill him." However, an important question is raised here, which is, "Does this imperative mood indicate a binding order or something else denoted by other relevant evidence?"

But before we delve into answering this question, it is worth mentioning that the scholars of the principles of Islamic jurisprudence have differed considerably over the various linguistic forms that express "commands" in the Arabic Language. Some of them have said that the imperative form may denote more than twenty meanings; and some have said that no decision is to be given on the imperative form as indicating a certain meaning until it becomes clearly evident which meaning it refers to. X The most reliable opinion of the scholars of the principles of Islamic jurisprudence in this regard is that the imperative form is primarily used to give orders, unless there is authentic evidence which indicates otherwise.

With this in mind, let us review the hadith in question to see what the imperative form therein indicates in light of the other evidence in the Qur'an and Sunnah.

The Qur'an did not mention a worldly punishment for apostasy.

The first thing that may occur to us in this connection is that the Qur'an did not mention a worldly punishment for apostasy, as clarified above. But this alone is not sufficient proof that the imperative form in the hadith does not indicate a binding order, for Allah Almighty allowed His Prophet to give additional injunctions in some cases "wherein there is no explicit ruling in the Qur'an. And these injunctions are binding by virtue of Allah's ordering Muslims in His Book to obey His Messenger and abide by his commandments. Hence, one who follows the Prophet's teachings is abiding by Allah's instructions."

However, there are authentic hadiths reported on the authority of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that denote that the imperative in the hadith about killing apostates is not binding. Rather, it gives permission to kill apostates, but does not ordain killing them. Based on this, I believe that the punishment of apostasy is discretionary and is left entirely to the judiciary or rulers, or, in other words, to the concerned authorities in the Muslim state, to decide. They may give whatever punishment they deem appropriate in this regard; and there should be no criticism of their verdicts if they inflict the death penalty upon the apostate. This, and Allah knows best, is what the Prophet's hadith in question refers to. This is to say, it means that those who change their religion [of Islam] may be punished for this by being killed, not that they must inevitably be killed for this.

Evidence for Stance

The hadiths which mention that Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) put to death or ordered that a certain male or female apostate be put to death are all unauthentic with regard to their chains of transmission. Hence, it is not proved that he (peace and blessings be upon him) punished a person for apostasy by putting him to death.

It was reported that a Bedouin once went to the Prophet and swore allegiance to Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). He suffered from a severe fever in Madinah (and) so he came to Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) saying, "Muhammad, cancel my oath of allegiance." But Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) refused it. He again came and said, "Muhammad, cancel my oath of allegiance." The Prophet also refused it. He came to him again and said, "Cancel my oath of allegiance." But he refused again. The Bedouin, however, went away (canceling the allegiance himself); thereupon Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Madinah is like a furnace which drives away the impurities and purifies what is good" (Al-Bukhari and Muslim).

Al-Hafiz ibn Hajar and Imam An-Nawawi mentioned, quoting Judge `Iyad, that the Bedouin had asked Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) to cancel his pledge of allegiance to Islam, which is a clear case of apostasy. However, Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not punish the Bedouin for it, nor did he order that he be punished. The Prophet just let him leave Madinah without any reproach.

It was reported that there was a Christian who had embraced Islam and read Surat Al-Baqarah and Aal `Imran, and he used to record the revelations of the Prophet. Later on, he returned to Christianity again, and he used to say, "Muhammad knows nothing except what I have written for him." Then Allah caused him to die, and the people buried him, but in the morning they saw that the earth had thrown his body out." (Ibn Malik). The man in this hadith converted to Christianity after he had embraced Islam and learned the two Surahs of Al-Baqarah and Aal `Imran, yet the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not punish him for his apostasy.

It is related in the Qur'an that some Jews conspired to declare their belief in Islam for some time and renounce it later, so as to confuse the Muslims and lure them away from their religion. The Qur'an says the following on this subject:

[A section of the People of the Book say: "Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers, but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) turn back] (Aal `Imran 3:72)

Although that mass apostasy with its ill aim, according to the Qur'an itself, of confusing the Muslims and luring them away from their religion took place in Madinah while the Muslim state, ruled by Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), had full authority therein, yet he (peace and blessings be upon him) did not punish them.

With these numerous examples of people apostatizing from Islam without having been punished by Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), it would no longer be easy for us to admit that the punishment of apostasy in Islam is the legal death penalty; especially that, as we clarified at the beginning of this study, a characteristic of the prescribed penalties in Islam is that they must be applied whenever the relevant crimes are undoubtedly proved to have been committed.

Since the Prophet's hadith that reads, "Whoever changes his religion, then kill him," is authentic with regard to its chain of transmission, we can reconcile it with the above Prophetic reports (that did not punish the apostates mentioned therein) by saying, and Allah knows best, that he (peace and blessings be upon him) meant thereby to teach his Ummah that it is permissible for them to punish apostates by death as a discretionary judgment.

This is supported by a number of examples from the lives of the righteous predecessors, as well as some juristic views that mention other punishments for apostates than death.

For example, Anas Ibn Malik ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated the following:

Musa sent me with the news of entering Tastir to `Umar (may Allah be pleased with him). As six people from (the tribe) of Bakr ibn Wa'il had apostatized from Islam, `Umar asked me, "What has been done with the six people from Bakr ibn Wa'il who apostatized from Islam?" I tried to divert his attention to something else, but he again said, ''What has been done with the people from Bakr ibn Wa'il?" I said, "O Commander of the Faithful, they are people who became apostates and joined the polytheists. Was there an alternative to putting them to death?" `Umar commented, "Had they been handed over to me, this would have been the most beloved thing to me on the earth." Anas wondered, "And what would you have done with them?" `Umar replied, "I would have asked them to return to Islam, and had they refused, I would have imprisoned them." (`Abdur-Raziq)

Another example was set by `Umar ibn `Abdul-`Aziz. It was reported that some people had embraced Islam and then became apostates therefrom. Maimun Ibn Mahran wrote to `Umar ibn `Abdul-`Aziz to ask him what to do with them. `Umar replied, "Impose tribute upon them again and set them free."

Another governor under the rule of `Umar ibn `Abdul-`Aziz wrote to him asking what to do with a man who had embraced Islam and then apostatized from it. `Umar replied, "Ask him about the laws of Islam. If he knows about them, then ask him to return to Islam. Should he refuse this, put him to death. But if he has no knowledge about them, then impose a doubled tribute upon him and set him free."

Ath-Thawri reported Ibrahim An-Nakha`i, an eminent scholar from the righteous predecessors, as holding that apostates are to be (imprisoned and) asked to return to Islam along their lifetime. Ath-Thawri also said, "This is the viewpoint that we also follow."

Furthermore, Al-Baji, an eminent Maliki scholar, refuting the opinion that apostates are to be killed even if they repented, wrote the following:

Apostasy is a sinful act for which there is no specific prescribed penalty, and which involves no recompense for violating someone else's right as is the case with other sinful (prohibited) acts.

There is no scholarly difference as to the permissibility of inflicting discretionary punishments for the sins that do not involve prescribed penalties or (recompense for violating) others' rights.

Contemplating the attitude of `Umar ibn Al-Khattab (when he said that he would have imprisoned the apostates until they repented) and the attitude of `Umar ibn `Abdul-`Aziz, (who differentiated between apostates who had previous knowledge of the laws of Islam and those who did not, and consequently judged that the former be made to pay tribute and be free to believe in the religion they converted to), we find that they would not have adopted these attitudes unless they had realized from the Prophet's hadith that says, "Whoever changes his religion, then kill him," that the imperative mood in the hadith indicates its being a discretionary punishment not a prescribed one.

Based on all that is mentioned above, I believe that the punishment for apostasy is discretionary and is left entirely to the concerned authorities in the Muslim state to decide. They inflict whatever kind and extent of punishment they deem appropriate in this respect, even if it includes capital punishment. This enables us to strike a balance between the narrations related on the authority of the righteous predecessors which prove that in some cases they put the apostates to death and the narrations which mention that in other cases they did not execute them. I also agree with Ibrahim An-Nakha`i and Ath-Thawri that apostates are to be imprisoned and asked to repent and return to Islam along their lifetime without being put to death.

Although this contradicts the opinion of the majority of jurists, as they believe that inflicting the death penalty on apostates is obligatory, while we see that it is only permissible, I think that the evidences I cite in favor of my views sufficiently support it. Should this view prove to be right, I praise Allah Almighty for guiding me to it; and should it prove to be wrong, I ask Allah to forgive me.

---

**Dr. Muhammad Salim Al-`Awwa is an Egyptian law expert and former university professor. He received his doctorate in comparative law in London in 1972. Dr. Al-`Awwa is the chairman of the Egyptian Society for Culture and Dialogue. In addition, he also works as a professor of Islamic jurisprudence and comparative law in the Islamic studies department at King Saud University, Saudi Arabia. Dr. Al-`Awwa is also a member of the International Union for Muslim Scholars. He is the author of many publications, such as Ijthad in Islamic Law, On the Political System of the Islamic State, Punishment in Islamic Law, and The Basic Principles of the Islamic Penal System.

The works posted on this page reflect solely the opinions of the authors. Contemporary Issues

Critiques and Thought | Islamic Themes | Human Condition & Social Context | Scientific Domain | Interfaith, Intercivilizational & Intercultural | Interviews, Reviews and Events