The hadiths which mention “whoever changes his religion kill him” are the following:
ʿAli رضي الله عنه was brought some heretics, and he burned them.
When this reached Ibn ʿAbbas رضي الله عنهما, he said:
Had it been me, I would not have burned them, because The Messenger ﷺ forbade that. But I would have killed them because of the saying of The Messenger ﷺ:
“Whoever changes his religion, kill him.” (Sahih Al Bukhari 6992)
Narrated Ibn ʿAbbas رضي الله عنهما:
The Messenger ﷺ said: “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.” (Sunan An Nasai 4059)
Navigation Menu
Ibn ʿAbd al Barr’s Detailed Analysis On This Matter
Ibn Hajar’s Detailed Explanation Of The Hadith
Summary
The hadith, “Whoever changes his religion, kill him,” refers to the one who leaves Islam after having entered it, openly remains upon riddah (apostasy), and does not return after being called back to Islam. The wording is authentically established from Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنهما through the connected route in Sahih al Bukhari, and it is also narrated in Sunan An Nasai and Sunan Abi Dawud. The mursal (missing Companion link) wording from Zayd ibn Aslam also appears in Muwatta Malik, but Ibn Abd al Barr makes clear that the fully connected and authentic route is the hadith of Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنهما. (Sahih al Bukhari 6922) (Sunan An Nasai 4059) (Sunan Abi Dawud 4351) (Muwatta Malik 1419) (al Tamhid lima fi al Muwatta min al Maʿani wa al Asanid by Ibn Abd al Barr, 5/304–320)
The Context In Which Ibn Abbas Used The Hadith
Ali رضي الله عنه was brought zanadiqah (people who hide unbelief while showing Islam), and he burned them. When Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنهما heard about this, he did not object to the legal ruling of killing them. Rather, he objected to the method of burning.
He said that he would not have burned them because The Messenger ﷺ said: “Do not punish with the punishment of Allah.” Then he said that he would have killed them because The Messenger ﷺ said: “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.” (Sahih al Bukhari 6922) (Sunan Abi Dawud 4351)
The main point is therefore clear: Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنهما understood the hadith as proof for killing the open apostate, but he also understood that burning by fire was not permissible, because fire is the punishment of Allah.
The ruling was not about personal revenge, anger, or punishment without order. It was a judicial ruling concerning riddah (apostasy), while also keeping to the Prophetic prohibition against killing by fire. (Sahih al Bukhari 3016) (Sunan Abi Dawud 2675) (Fath al Bari bi Sharh Sahih al Bukhari by Ibn Hajar al Asqalani, 22/183–191)
What Type Of Apostasy Is Meant
The hadith is not understood as referring to every inward doubt or hidden state which is not proven apparently.
Ibn Hajar explains that the general wording excludes the one who changes inwardly but this is not established from the apparent.
Such a person is judged by the apparent rulings of Islam, and Allah takes care of what is hidden. The hadith also excludes the one who is forced under ikrah (compulsion). (Fath al Bari bi Sharh Sahih al Bukhari by Ibn Hajar al Asqalani, 22/183–191)
The meaning is also not that any non Muslim who moves from one non Muslim religion to another is included. Malik and the majority of the fuqaha understood the hadith to mean the one who leaves Islam for kufr.
Ibn Hajar also mentions that this is supported by other wording, such as: “Whoever opposes his religion, the religion of Islam, strike his neck.” (Al Muʿjam Al Kabir 11617) (Fath al Bari bi Sharh Sahih al Bukhari by Ibn Hajar al Asqalani, 22/183–191)
Allah says:
إِنَّ الدِّينَ عِندَ اللَّهِ الْإِسْلَامُ
“Indeed, the religion with Allah is Islam.” (al Imran 19)
Allah also says:
وَمَن يَبْتَغِ غَيْرَ الْإِسْلَامِ دِينًا فَلَن يُقْبَلَ مِنْهُ
“Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted from him.” (al Imran 85)
These verses were used to show that Islam is the true religion in reality, and that the hadith concerns leaving Islam, not simply moving between forms of kufr. (Fath al Bari bi Sharh Sahih al Bukhari by Ibn Hajar al Asqalani, 22/183–191)
Why The Hadith Does Not Mean Immediate Killing In Every Case
Ibn Abd al Barr explains that the wording has an implied meaning because of the actions of the Sahabah.
The meaning is that whoever changes his religion and remains upon that change, and does not repent, is killed. The Sahabah knew the hadith, but they still practised istitabah (asking the apostate to repent). Therefore, the hadith is not understood in isolation from their practice. (al Tamhid lima fi al Muwatta min al Maʿani wa al Asanid by Ibn Abd al Barr, 5/304–320)
Umar ibn al Khattab رضي الله عنه was told that a man had disbelieved after Islam and had been killed. He objected to the haste and said: “Why did you not imprison him for three days, feed him a loaf of bread each day, and ask him to repent, so that perhaps he would repent and return to the command of Allah?”
Then he said: “O Allah, I was not present, I did not command it, and I was not pleased when it reached me.” (Muwatta Malik 1420)
This is why Ibn Abd al Barr says that he did not know of any difference among the Sahabah concerning asking the murtadd (apostate) to repent. Their practice shows that the hadith means the apostate who persists after being called back to Islam. (al Tamhid lima fi al Muwatta min al Maʿani wa al Asanid by Ibn Abd al Barr, 5/304–320)
The Difference Between The Open Apostate And The Zindiq
A murtadd (apostate) is the one who openly leaves Islam. A zindiq is one who apparently shows Islam while hiding kufr (unbelief). This distinction matters because repentance from an open apostate can be known by his apparent return to Islam, while the repentance of a zindiq is harder to verify, since his offence was hidden in the first place. (Fath al Bari bi Sharh Sahih al Bukhari by Ibn Hajar al Asqalani, 22/183–191)
Malik held that the zindiq is killed and is not asked to repent when his zandaqah (hidden unbelief) is exposed, because his apparent repentance may only be the same apparent Islam that he had already been showing. Al Shafiʿi held that the zindiq is asked to repent like the open apostate, and if he repents, his repentance is accepted apparently.
Ahmad and Abu Hanifah have two reports on this matter. One says that the zindiq is not asked to repent. Another says that if this happens repeatedly, his repentance is not accepted. (al Tamhid lima fi al Muwatta min al Maʿani wa al Asanid by Ibn Abd al Barr, 5/304–320) (Fath al Bari bi Sharh Sahih al Bukhari by Ibn Hajar al Asqalani, 22/183–191)
The strongest point in the summary of Ibn Hajar is that the hadith was used by some as proof for killing the zindiq without istitabah, but this was answered by the fact that some reports mention that Ali رضي الله عنه asked them to repent before carrying out the ruling. (Fath al Bari bi Sharh Sahih al Bukhari by Ibn Hajar al Asqalani, 22/183–191)
The Ruling Is Based On What Is Apparent
The legal rulings of this life are based on what appears apparently. Hidden realities belong to Allah.
This is why Ibn Hajar mentions the proof that apparent Islam protects a person unless there is clear apparent proof of kufr, apostasy, or another matter that changes the ruling. The Prophet ﷺ said to Usamah رضي الله عنه: “Did you split open his heart?” (Sahih Muslim 96)
The Prophet ﷺ also said: “I have not been commanded to search into the hearts of people.” (Sahih Muslim 1064)
This principle is vital. The hadith does not open the door to judging hidden thoughts or private claims without proof. It concerns an apparent change from Islam, established before the authority, after which the person is called back to Islam. (Fath al Bari bi Sharh Sahih al Bukhari by Ibn Hajar al Asqalani, 22/183–191)
Side Note: If somebody is living in a land ruled by Sharia, and they have apostated, all they need to do is keep quiet about their apostasy, so they do not suffer the punishment or they may leave the land ruled by Sharia. The complaints about this ruling can easily be avoided but if one chooses to openly apostate in a Muslim land, they will be ruled with the law of Sharia… Avoiding this punishment can easily be done, so this should not be a doubt for people to think they are forced to accept Islam again.
The Views Of The Fuqaha On Asking For Repentance
The fuqaha differed over how long the murtadd is given for istitabah. Some held that he is not delayed, based on the apparent wording of the hadith. Some said he is asked once, in one sitting. Some said he is asked for one month. Others said he is asked for three days, based on what is narrated from Umar, Uthman, Ali, and Ibn Masʿud رضي الله عنهم. (al Tamhid lima fi al Muwatta min al Maʿani wa al Asanid by Ibn Abd al Barr, 5/304–320)
Malik said that Islam is presented to the apostate for three days. If he accepts Islam, it is accepted from him. If not, he is killed. Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Ishaq ibn Rahwayh also held that the male apostate and the female apostate are asked to repent for three days, while the zindiq is not asked to repent. Al Shafiʿi held that both the open apostate and the zindiq are asked to repent, and whoever does not repent is killed. Abu Hanifah and his companions held that the apostate is not killed until Islam is presented to him. (al Tamhid lima fi al Muwatta min al Maʿani wa al Asanid by Ibn Abd al Barr, 5/304–320)
The Female Apostate
The fuqaha differed concerning the murtaddah (female apostate).
Imam Malik, Al Awzaʿi, Al Shafiʿi, Al Layth, and others held that she is killed just as the male apostate is killed, because the hadith is general and does not separate between male and female. They also used the hadith: “The blood of a Muslim person is not lawful except for one of three: unbelief after faith, zina after marriage, or killing a life without a life.” (Sahih al Bukhari 6878) (Sahih Muslim 1676a)
Abu Hanifah, Al Thawri, Ibn Shubrumah, and others held that the female apostate is not killed, using as proof the reports forbidding the killing of women and children, and what they narrated from Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنهما on that matter. (Sahih al Bukhari 3014) (Sahih Muslim 1744a) (al Tamhid lima fi al Muwatta min al Maʿani wa al Asanid by Ibn Abd al Barr, 5/304–320)
Ibn Hajar records the disagreement and also mentions the argument of the majority: the prohibition of killing women refers to original non Muslim women who did not fight, while apostasy is a separate legal cause, just as women and men share other hudud (fixed punishments). (Fath al Bari bi Sharh Sahih al Bukhari by Ibn Hajar al Asqalani, 22/183–191)
Conclusion
The hadith means that when a Muslim openly leaves Islam, and this is established before the proper authority, he is called back to Islam.
If he persists upon riddah (apostasy), then the legal ruling of execution applies. The hadith was used by Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنهما to affirm the ruling of killing the apostate, while also rejecting burning as a method of killing, because The Messenger ﷺ forbade punishing with fire. (Sahih al Bukhari 6922) (Sunan Abi Dawud 4351)
The hadith is not about hidden thoughts, private suspicions, forced speech, or judging hearts. It is about an apparent act of apostasy from Islam. It is also not mainly about a non Muslim changing from one non Muslim religion to another.
According to Malik and the majority, the intended meaning is leaving Islam for kufr. The Sahabah’s practice of istitabah shows that the ruling is carried out after the person is called back and continues upon apostasy. (Muwatta Malik 1420) (al Tamhid lima fi al Muwatta min al Maʿani wa al Asanid by Ibn Abd al Barr, 5/304–320) (Fath al Bari bi Sharh Sahih al Bukhari by Ibn Hajar al Asqalani, 22/183–191)
End of Summary.
Ibn ʿAbd al Barr’s Detailed Analysis On This Matter
The Forty Ninth Hadith Of Zayd Ibn Aslam As A Mursal Report
Malik (d. 179AH) narrated from Zayd ibn Aslam (d. 136AH) that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “Whoever changes his religion, strike his neck.” (Muwatta Malik 1419)
This is how a group of the narrators of al Muwatta narrated it, as a mursal report. No narration from Malik is authentic in this matter except this mursal hadith from Zayd ibn Aslam.
It has also been narrated in this matter from Malik, from Nafiʿ (d. 117AH), from Ibn Umar, from the Prophet ﷺ that he said: “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.” This is munkar (rejected) according to me, and Allah knows best.
The hadith is well known, established, connected in chain, and authentic through the hadith of Ibn Abbas.
Abu Muhammad Abdullah ibn Muhammad narrated to us. He said: Saʿid ibn al Sakan (d. 353AH) narrated to us. He said: Muhammad ibn Yusuf narrated to us. He said: Muhammad ibn Ismail al Bukhari (d. 256AH) narrated to us. He said: Abu al Nuʿman Muhammad ibn al Fadl (d. 224AH) narrated to us. He said: Hammad ibn Zayd (d. 179AH) narrated to us, from Ayyub al Sakhtiyani (d. 131AH), from Ikrimah (d. 105AH), who said:
Ali was brought some zanadiqah (people hiding unbelief while showing Islam), and he burned them. This reached Ibn Abbas, so he said: “If it had been me, I would not have burned them, because the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “Do not punish with the punishment of Allah.” I would have killed them because the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.”” (Sahih al Bukhari 6922)
Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Abd al Mu’min narrated to us. He said: Muhammad ibn Bakr narrated to us. He said: Abu Dawud (d. 275AH) narrated to us. He said: Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241AH) narrated to us. He said: Ismail ibn Ibrahim (d. 193AH) narrated to us. He said: Ayyub reported to us, from Ikrimah, that Ali burned some people who had apostatised from Islam. This reached Ibn Abbas, so he said: “I would not have burned them with fire, because the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “Do not punish with the punishment of Allah.” I would have killed them because of the saying of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ: “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.”” (Sunan Abi Dawud 4351)
When this reached Ali, he said: “Woe to the mother of Ibn Abbas.”
Abu Umar (d. 463AH) said: It has been narrated through a number of routes that Ali only burned them with fire after striking their necks. We shall mention some reports about that at the end of this section, if Allah wills.
The Fiqh Of This Hadith
The fiqh of this hadith is that whoever apostatises from his religion, his blood becomes lawful and his neck is struck. The ummah is agreed upon that. They only differed over his istitabah (being asked to repent).
One group said: “He is not asked to repent, according to the apparent wording of this hadith. Rather, he is killed.”
Another group said: He is asked to repent for one hour, one time, and one sitting.
Others said: He is asked to repent for one month.
Others said: He is asked to repent for three days, according to what is narrated from Umar, Uthman, Ali, and Ibn Masʿud.
Ibn Masʿud did not ask Ibn al Nawwahah alone to repent because of the saying of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ to him: “Were it not that you were a messenger, I would have killed you.” He said to him: “Today, you are not a messenger.” He did ask others to repent. (Sunan Abi Dawud 2762)
Malik narrated from Abd al Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Abd al Qari, from his father, that he said:
A man came to Umar ibn al Khattab from the direction of Abu Musa al Ashʿari. Umar asked him about the people, and he informed him. Then Umar said to him: “Is there any unusual news?” He said: “Yes. A man disbelieved after his Islam.”
Umar said: “What did you do with him?” He said: “We brought him forward and struck his neck.” Umar said: “Why did you not imprison him for three days, feed him a loaf of bread each day, and ask him to repent, so that perhaps he would repent and return to the command of Allah?” Then Umar said: “O Allah, I was not present, I did not command it, and I was not pleased when it reached me.” (Muwatta Malik 1420)
Khalaf ibn al Qasim (d. 393AH) reported to us. He said: Ibn Abi al Aqib narrated to us. He said: Abu Zurʿah narrated to us. He said: Ahmad ibn Khalid narrated to us. He said: Muhammad ibn Ishaq (d. 151AH) narrated to us, from Abd al Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Abd al Qari, from his father, who said:
A delegation from the people of Basrah came to Umar and informed him of the conquest of Tustar. He praised Allah, then said: “Did anything happen among you?”
They said: “No, by Allah, O Commander of the Believers, except that a man apostatised from his religion, so we killed him.”
He said: “Woe to you. Were you unable to close a house over him for three days, then give him one loaf of bread each day? If he repented, you would accept that from him. If he remained upon it, you would have given him his excuse.” Then he said: “O Allah, I did not witness it, I did not command it, and I was not pleased when it reached me.”
Dawud ibn Abi Hind (d. 140AH) narrated from al Shaʿbi (d. 103AH), from Anas ibn Malik, that a group from Bakr ibn Wa’il apostatised from Islam on the day of Tustar and joined the mushrikin (those who worship others along with Allah). When it was conquered, they were killed in battle.
He said: I came to Umar with news of its conquest. He said: “What happened to the group from Bakr ibn Wa’il?” I turned to another matter in my speech, to distract him from mentioning them. He said: “What happened to the group from Bakr ibn Wa’il?”
I said: “They were killed.” He said: “For me to have taken them peacefully would be more beloved to me than everything over which the sun rises, of yellow and white wealth.” I said: “Was there any way for them except killing? They apostatised from Islam and joined the mushrikin.” He said: “I would have offered them to enter the door from which they had left. If they did so, I would have accepted it from them. If not, I would have placed them in prison.”
Abu Muʿawiyah (d. 195AH) narrated from al Aʿmash (d. 148AH), from Abu Amr al Shaybani (d. 95AH), that Ali was brought al Mustawrid al Ijli after he had apostatised from Islam. Ali asked him to repent, but he refused to repent, so he killed him.
Ubadah narrated from al Ala Abu Muhammad that Ali took a man from Bakr ibn Wa’il who had become Christian after Islam. He offered Islam to him for one month, but he refused. So he ordered that he be killed.
I do not know of any difference among the Sahabah over asking the murtadd (apostate) to repent. This shows that the meaning of the hadith, and Allah knows best, is: whoever changes his religion and remains upon his change, kill him.
The Views Of The Fuqaha
As for the sayings of the fuqaha (jurists), Ibn al Qasim (d. 191AH) narrated from Malik that he said: Islam is presented to the apostate for three days.
If he accepts Islam, then that is accepted. If not, he is killed.
He said: If he apostatises secretly, he is killed and is not asked to repent, just as the zanadiqah are killed. He said: The one who is asked to repent is the one who openly shows the religion to which he apostatised.
Malik said: The zanadiqah are killed and are not asked to repent. The Qadariyyah are asked to repent.
It was said to Malik: “How are they asked to repent?” He said: “It is said to them: “Leave what you are upon.” If they do so, then that is accepted. If not, they are killed.”
Ibn Wahb (d. 197AH) narrated from Malik: “There is no command from the whole body of people about asking for repentance.”
Ahmad ibn Muhammad reported to us. He said: al Hasan ibn Salamah narrated to us. He said: Abdullah ibn al Jarud (d. 307AH) narrated to us. He said: Ishaq narrated to us. He said: I heard Ahmad ibn Hanbal say: “The male apostate is asked to repent for three days. The female apostate is asked to repent for three days. The zindiq is not asked to repent.”
Ishaq said: Ishaq ibn Rahwayh (d. 238AH) said to me exactly as Ahmad said.
Abu Umar said: This is exactly the madhhab (legal position) of Malik.
Al Shafiʿi (d. 204AH) said: The apparent apostate and the zindiq are both asked to repent. Whoever among them does not repent is killed.
Regarding asking for repentance for three days, there are two sayings. One of them is based on the hadith of Umar. The other is that he is not delayed, because the Prophet ﷺ did not command any waiting period in this matter. This is the apparent meaning of the report.
Al Shafiʿi said: If two witnesses testify against him for apostasy and he denies it, he is killed. If he affirms that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah, that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and that he frees himself from every religion that opposes Islam, nothing else is investigated from him.
The well known position of Abu Hanifah (d. 150AH) and his companions is that the apostate is not killed until he is asked to repent. This is also the saying of Ibn Ulayyah (d. 193AH). They said: Whoever kills him before he is asked to repent has done wrong, but no compensation is due upon him.
Muhammad ibn al Hasan (d. 189AH) narrated in al Siyar by Muhammad ibn al Hasan, from Abu Yusuf (d. 182AH), from Abu Hanifah, that Islam is presented to the apostate. If he accepts Islam, then that is accepted. If not, he is killed immediately, unless he asks to be given time. If he asks for that, he is given three days.
According to them, the zindiq and the apostate are the same. However, when Abu Yusuf saw what the zanadiqah did, and that they returned after being asked to repent, he said: “If a zindiq is brought to me, I think that I should command that his neck be struck, and I will not ask him to repent. If he repents before I kill him, I will not kill him, and I will release him.”
Al Layth ibn Saʿd (d. 175AH) and a group with him said: Whoever was born in Islam and then apostatises is not asked to repent if testimony is given against him. Rather, he is killed, whether he repents from that or does not repent, once upright evidence is established.
Al Hasan al Basri (d. 110AH) said: The apostate is asked to repent one hundred times. It has also been narrated from him that he is killed without being asked to repent.
Sahnun (d. 240AH) mentioned that Abd al Aziz ibn Abi Salamah (d. 164AH) used to say: “The apostate is killed and is not asked to repent.” He used as proof the hadith of Muʿadh with Abu Musa al Ashʿari, which we have mentioned at the end of this section.
Abu Umar said: The apparent wording of this hadith supports what al Layth ibn Saʿd went to, except that the hadith is general for everyone who changes his religion, whether he was born in Islam or was not born in Islam.
In my view, the hadith has an implied meaning, because of what the Sahabah did by asking for repentance. They were not ignorant of the meaning of the hadith. So it is as though the meaning of the hadith, and Allah knows best, is: “Whoever changes his religion, kill him if he does not repent.”
Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, said that what is meant by this hadith is the one who leaves Islam for unbelief. As for the one who leaves Judaism, Christianity, or one type of unbelief for another type of unbelief, he is not meant by this hadith.
The majority of the fuqaha are upon this saying of Malik, except that al Shafiʿi said: If the one who changes his religion is from ahl al dhimmah (protected non Muslim citizens under covenant), the imam may remove him from his land and make him join the land of war.
It is permissible for him to make his wealth lawful along with the wealth of the people of war, if he gains control over the land, because the dhimmah (covenant of protection) was only made for him upon the religion he was upon when the covenant was made for him.
This is how al Muzani (d. 264AH) and others among his companions reported it from him. This is the well known position of his madhhab.
Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Abd al Hakam (d. 268AH) reported from him that if a dhimmi leaves one religion for another religion, the imam may kill him according to the apparent wording of the hadith. The well known position from him is what we have already mentioned from the report of al Muzani, al Rabiʿ (d. 270AH), and others from him.
One group said: If he apostatises, he is asked to repent. If he repents, it is accepted from him. Then if he apostatises again, the same is done until the fourth time. Then he is killed and is not asked to repent.
It was narrated from al Hasan al Basri that he is killed unless he repents before he is brought to the imam. If he does not repent until he reaches the imam, he is killed, and his repentance is between him and Allah. He made it one of the hudud (legal punishments), and it is not permissible for the imam except to establish it.
The Female Apostate
The fuqaha also differed over the murtaddah (female apostate).
Malik, al Awzaʿi (d. 157AH), Uthman al Batti (d. 143AH), al Shafiʿi, and al Layth ibn Saʿd said: The female apostate is killed just as the male apostate is killed. They are the same. This is also the saying of Ibrahim al Nakhaʿi (d. 96AH).
Their proof is the apparent wording of this hadith, because it did not specify male apart from female. The wording is suitable for one person, two people, a group, male, and female. He also said: “The blood of a Muslim person is not lawful except for one of three: unbelief after faith, zina after marriage, or killing a life without a life.” (Sahih al Bukhari 6878, Sahih Muslim 1676a)
So it is general for everyone who disbelieves after faith.
Al Thawri (d. 161AH), Abu Hanifah, and his companions said: The female apostate is not killed. This is also the saying of Ibn Shubrumah (d. 144AH), and Ibn Ulayyah went to this view.
Ibn Shubrumah said: If a Muslim woman becomes Christian and a Christian man marries her, that is valid.
The proof of those who said that the female apostate is not killed is that Ibn Abbas narrated this hadith, and he said: “The female apostate is not killed.” They said: Whoever narrates a hadith is more knowledgeable about its interpretation.
The saying of Ibn Abbas about that was narrated by al Thawri and Abu Hanifah, from Asim (d. 127AH), from Abu Razin, from Ibn Abbas.
Qatadah (d. 117AH) narrated from Khallas, from Ali, the same as that. This is also the saying of al Hasan and Ata (d. 114AH).
Part of their proof is that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade killing women and children. (Sahih al Bukhari 3014, Sahih Muslim 1744a)
Also, Abu Bakr took the women of the people of riddah (apostasy) as captives.
They said: The meaning of the saying of the Prophet ﷺ: “Whoever changes his religion, kill him” is only for everyone whose ruling, when captured, is execution because of his unbelief. As for the woman, her ruling is not execution because of her unbelief. Her ruling is captivity and enslavement. So she does not enter into the interpretation of this hadith, because the Prophet ﷺ forbade killing women and children. The statement about this hadith will come in its proper place in this book of ours, if Allah wills.
Ibn al Mubarak (d. 181AH) narrated from Maʿmar (d. 153AH), from al Zuhri (d. 124AH), regarding the female apostate. He said: “She is killed.”
Qatadah said: “She is taken captive, because Abu Bakr killed the people of apostasy and took their women captive.”
Maʿmar said: “It was a land of shirk (worshipping others along with Allah).”
Khalaf ibn al Qasim reported to us. Abdullah ibn Jaʿfar ibn al Ward narrated to us. Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Abd al Salam narrated to us. Abdullah ibn Abi Shaybah (d. 235AH) narrated to us. Yaʿqub ibn Muhammad al Zuhri narrated to us. Yahya ibn Zakariyya ibn Abi Za’idah (d. 184AH) narrated to us, from Mujahid ibn Saʿid, from Amir al Shaʿbi, who said:
Banu Amir apostatised, killed the workers of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ who were among them, and burned them with fire. Abu Bakr wrote to Khalid, may Allah be pleased with both of them, ordering him to kill Banu Amir and burn them with fire.
When al Fuja’ah apostatised, whose name was Iyas ibn Abdullah ibn Abd Yalil, Abu Bakr al Siddiq sent al Zubayr ibn al Awwam with thirty horsemen to him. He attacked him at night, took him, and brought him to Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr said: “Take him out to al Baqiʿ,” meaning to the place of prayer, “and burn him with fire.” So they took him out to the place of prayer and burned him.
Some of the people of history claimed that it was reported against him that he was sexually penetrated as a woman is. Yaʿqub ibn Muhammad al Zuhri mentioned all of that in Kitab al Riddah by Yaʿqub ibn Muhammad al Zuhri.
He said: Abd al Aziz ibn Abi Hazim (d. 184AH) narrated to me, from Dawud ibn Bakr, from Muhammad ibn al Munkadir (d. 130AH), that Khalid wrote to Abu Bakr mentioning that he found, in some areas of the Arabs, a man who was sexually penetrated as a woman is.
Abu Bakr consulted the people about him. Ali was among the strongest of them in speech concerning him, and he said: “This is a sin by which no ummah from the umam disobeyed except one ummah. Allah did with them what you already know. I think you should burn him with fire.” Their view agreed upon that, so Abu Bakr wrote to Khalid, and he burned him.
He said: Maʿn ibn Isa (d. 198AH) narrated to me, from Muʿawiyah ibn Salih (d. 158AH), from Iyad ibn Abdullah, who said: When Abu Bakr consulted them, they said: “We think that you should stone him.” Ali said: “I think that you should burn him, because the Arabs shrink from mutilation, but they do not shrink from hudud.” So they burned him.
Musa ibn Uqbah (d. 141AH) mentioned from Ibn Shihab, regarding the apostasy of Asad and Ghatafan on the day of Buzakhah, that he said:
They fought, meaning they and the Muslims, with severe fighting. The Muslims killed many people from the enemy, and they took captives from them. Khalid commanded that a fenced enclosure be built, then a great fire be lit beneath it, and the captives were thrown into it.
Shayban (d. 164AH) narrated from Qatadah, from Anas, who said: Abu Bakr fought the people of apostasy. He killed, took captives, and burned.
Saʿid ibn Nasr narrated to us. He said: Qasim ibn Asbagh (d. 340AH) narrated to us. He said: Muhammad ibn Ismail al Tirmidhi (d. 280AH) narrated to us. He said: al Humaydi (d. 219AH) narrated to us. He said: Sufyan ibn Uyaynah (d. 198AH) narrated to us. He said: Ayyub narrated to us. He said: Ikrimah narrated to us. He said:
When it reached Ibn Abbas that Ali had burned the apostates, meaning the zanadiqah, he said: “If it had been me, I would have killed them because of the saying of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ: “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.” I would not have burned them because of the saying of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ: “It is not proper that anyone should be punished with the punishment of Allah.”” (Sahih al Bukhari 6922, Sunan Abi Dawud 4351)
Sufyan said: Ammar al Duhni (d. 133AH) said, while he was in the gathering of Amr ibn Dinar (d. 126AH), and Ayyub was narrating this hadith: “Ali did not burn them with fire. He only dug tunnels for them and smoked them from them until he killed them.”
Amr ibn Dinar said: “Did you not hear their speaker saying:
“Let death throw me wherever it wishes,
if it does not throw me in two places.
When they light wood and fire,
then that is death in hand, not delayed.”
Hamid ibn Yahya (d. 248AH) narrated from Sufyan, from Misʿar (d. 153AH), from Ata ibn Abi Marwan, that this poetry belonged to al Najashi. He said it when he joined Muʿawiyah as a fugitive, after Ali had given him one hundred lashes for wine.
Abu Umar said: We have narrated through a number of routes that Ali only burned them after killing them.
Al Uqayli (d. 322AH) mentioned: Muhammad ibn Ismail narrated to us. He said: Shababah narrated to us.
Abu Zayd Umar ibn Shabbah (d. 262AH) mentioned: Muhammad ibn Hatim narrated to me. He said: Shababah ibn Sawwar (d. 206AH) narrated to us. He said: Kharijah ibn Musʿab narrated to us, from Sallam ibn Abi al Qasim, from Uthman ibn Abi Uthman al Ansari, who said:
Some people from the Shiah came to Ali and said: “O Commander of the Believers, you are He.” He said: “Who am I?” They said: “You are He.” He said: “Woe to you. Who am I?” They said: “You are our Lord.” He said: “Woe to you. Return and repent.” They refused. So he struck their necks. Then he said: “O Qanbar, bring me bundles of firewood.” He dug a trench for them in the ground and burned them with fire. Then he said:
“When I saw the matter as an evil matter,
I lit my fire and called Qanbar.”
Abu Umar said: Uthman ibn Affan, Sahl ibn Hunayf, Abdullah ibn Masʿud, Talhah ibn Ubaydillah, Aisha, and a group of the Sahabah narrated from the Prophet ﷺ that he said: “The blood of a Muslim person is not lawful except for one of three: unbelief after faith, zina after marriage, or killing a life without a life.” (Sahih al Bukhari 6878, Sahih Muslim 1676a, Sunan an Nasai 4019)
Execution for apostasy is, as we have mentioned, something over which there is no difference among the Muslims. The narration and the Sunnah from the Prophet ﷺ have not differed in that. The difference only occurred over asking for repentance and over what we mentioned regarding the female apostate.
Abu Umar said: Those who said that the apostate is killed if he apostatises for a third or fourth time used as proof the saying of Allah, Mighty and Majestic:
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا ثُمَّ كَفَرُوا
“Indeed, those who believed, then disbelieved…” (al Nisa 137)
They also used analogy, saying that whoever was born upon the fitrah (natural state of Islam) has more right to be asked to repent, because he does not know anything other than Islam.
Those who did not see that the apostate should be asked to repent, and said that he is killed according to the apparent wording of this hadith without istitabah, used as proof the hadith of Abu Musa al Ashʿari: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ appointed him over Yemen, then sent Muʿadh ibn Jabal after him. Muʿadh arrived and found with him a man bound in iron.
He said: “What is the matter with this man?” He said: “He was a Jew, then accepted Islam, then apostatised and returned to his religion, the evil religion.”
Muʿadh said: “I will not sit until he is killed. This is the judgement of Allah and His Messenger.” Abu Musa said to him: “Sit down.” He said: “I will not sit until he is killed. This is the judgement of Allah and His Messenger.” So he ordered that he be killed. (Sahih al Bukhari 7157, Sunan Abi Dawud 4356)
Yahya al Qattan (d. 198AH) narrated it from Qurrah ibn Khalid (d. 154AH), from Humayd ibn Hilal (d. 115AH), from Abu Burdah, from Abu Musa. It was narrated through several routes from Abu Musa, except that some of them mentioned that he had already been asked to repent for some days before that.
Those who held the view of asking for repentance used this hadith as proof. It is what Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya narrated to us. He said: Muhammad ibn Bakr narrated to us.
He said: Abu Dawud narrated to us. He said: Ahmad ibn Muhammad al Marwazi narrated to us. He said: Ali ibn al Husayn narrated to us, from his father, from Yazid al Nahwi, from Ikrimah, from Ibn Abbas, who said:
Abdullah ibn Saʿd used to write for the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. Shaytan made him slip, so he joined the unbelievers. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ commanded that he be killed on the day of the Conquest. Uthman sought protection for him, so the Messenger of Allah ﷺ granted him protection. (Sunan Abi Dawud 4358)
The Inheritance Of The Apostate
As for the inheritance of the apostate, the ulama differed over it.
What is correct with us is that his inheritance goes to the public treasury, and none of his heirs inherit from him, because of the saying of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ: “The unbeliever does not inherit from the Muslim, and the Muslim does not inherit from the unbeliever.” (Sahih al Bukhari 6764, Sahih Muslim 1614a)
We shall explain that and mention the sayings of the Salaf about it when we mention the hadith of Ibn Shihab from Ali ibn Husayn in this book of ours, if Allah wills.
Allah is the One whose help is sought.
al Tamhid lima fi al Muwatta min al Maʿani wa al Asanid by Ibn ʿAbd al Barr 5/304–320
Ibn Hajar’s Detailed Explanation Of The Hadith
Hadith 6922
Abu al Nuʿman Muhammad ibn al Fadl (d. 224AH) narrated to us. Hammad ibn Zayd (d. 179AH) narrated to us, from Ayyub, from Ikrimah, who said: Some zindiqs (hidden unbelievers) were brought to Ali ibn Abi Talib (d. 40AH), so he burned them.
That reached Ibn Abbas (d. 68AH), so he said: “If it had been me, I would not have burned them, due to the prohibition of the Messenger ﷺ: ‘Do not punish with the punishment of Allah.’ I would have killed them, due to the statement of the Messenger ﷺ: ‘Whoever changes his religion, kill him.'” (Sahih Al Bukhari 6922)
First Point
His saying, “Ayyub”, means Ayyub al Sakhtiyani (d. 131AH). Ikrimah is the freed slave of Ibn Abbas.
His Saying: “They Were Brought To Ali”
This refers to Ali ibn Abi Talib. It has already come in the chapter, “None Punishes With The Punishment Of Allah”, from Sahih Al Bukhari 3017, through the route of Sufyan ibn Uyaynah (d. 198AH), from Ayyub, with this same chain: that Ali burned some people. I mentioned there that Al Humaydi (d. 219AH) narrated it from Sufyan with the wording: “He burned the apostates.” (Musnad Al Humaydi 533)
Through another route, with Ibn Abi Shaybah (d. 235AH): “There were people worshipping idols secretly.” (Al Musannaf, Ibn Abi Shaybah, 10/142)
With Al Tabarani (d. 360AH), in Al Muʿjam Al Awsat, through the route of Suwayd ibn Ghafalah (d. 81AH): Ali was informed that some people had apostatised from Islam.
He sent for them, fed them, then called them to Islam, but they refused. So he dug a pit, then brought them, struck their necks, threw them into it, then placed firewood over them and burned them. Then he said: “Allah and His Messenger spoke the truth.” (Al Muʿjam Al Awsat 7101)
Abu al Muzaffar al Isfarayini (d. 471AH) claimed in Al Milal wa Al Nihal by Abu al Muzaffar al Isfarayini that those whom Ali burned were a sect of the Rafidah who claimed that he was God. They were the Saba’iyyah, and their leader was Abdullah ibn Saba. He was Jewish, then he apparently showed Islam and invented this saying.
This may have its basis in what we narrated in the third part of the hadith of Abu Tahir al Mukhlis (d. 393AH), through the route of Abdullah ibn Sharik al Amiri, from his father, who said: It was said to Ali: “There are people here at the door of the masjid who claim that you are their Lord.”
He called them and said to them: “Woe to you. What are you saying?” They said: “You are our Lord, our Creator, and our Provider.” He said: “Woe to you. I am only a servant like you. I eat food as you eat, and I drink as you drink. If I obey Allah, He rewards me if He wills. If I disobey Him, I fear that He will punish me. So fear Allah and return.” But they refused.
When the next day came, they came back to him early. Qanbar came and said: “By Allah, they have returned and are saying that same speech.” He said: “Bring them in.” They said the same thing. When the third day came, he said: “If you say that, I will surely kill you with the worst killing.”
But they refused to say anything else. He said: “O Qanbar, bring me workers with their murur.” So he dug a trench for them between the door of the masjid and the palace, and said: “Dig, and go deep into the ground.” Then he brought firewood and placed it with fire in the trench.
He said: “I am going to throw you into it unless you return.” They refused to return, so he threw them into it until they burned. Then he said:
“When I see an evil matter, I light my fire and call Qanbar.”
This chain is hasan.
As for what Ibn Abi Shaybah brought out through the route of Qatadah (d. 117AH), that Ali was brought people from the Zutt who worshipped an idol and he burned them, its chain is disconnected. If it is proven, then it is carried as another incident.
Ibn Abi Shaybah also brought out, through the route of Ayyub ibn al Nuʿman: “I witnessed Ali in the Rahbah. A man came to him and said: ‘There is a household here that has an idol in their house which they worship.’ So he stood and walked to the house. They brought out to him a statue of a man, so he set the house on fire over them.” (We did not find this in any of the printed books of Ibn Abi Shaybah. However, Ahmad 2966 and Al Nasa’i 4065 brought it out through the route of Qatadah from Anas ibn Malik, connected.) (In one manuscript, it was altered to “with the likeness of”.)
His Saying: “Zindiqs”
His saying, “zindiqs”, with a zay, nun, and qaf, is the plural of zindiq, with kasrah on its first letter and sukun on its second.
Abu Hatim al Sijistani (d. 255AH) and others said: The word zindiq is Persian that was Arabised. Its root is zandah kar, meaning one who says that time is eternal, because zandah means life, and kard means action. It is also applied to one who is precise and deep in examining matters.
Thaʿlab (d. 291AH) said: The word zindiq is not from the speech of the Arabs. Rather, they said zandaqi for one who is extremely miserly. When they wanted the meaning used by the common people, they said mulhid (one who denies and deviates) and dahri, with fathah on the dal, meaning one who says time is eternal. If they said it with dammah, they meant old age.
Al Jawhari (d. 393AH) said: The zindiq is one of the thanawiyyah (dualists). This is what he said. Some commentators explained it as: the one who claims that there is another god alongside Allah. This was criticised because that would require applying the name to every mushrik.
The correct point is what those who authored books on religions and sects mentioned: the origin of the zindiqs was the followers of Daysan, then Mani, then Mazdak. The first is with fathah on the dal, sukun on the ya, followed by an unpointed sad. The second is with a doubled nun, though it may also be lightened, and the ya is light. The third is with a silent zay, then a dal with fathah, then kaf.
The summary of their saying is that light and darkness are both eternal, and that they mixed, so the whole universe came from both of them. Whoever is from the people of evil is from darkness, and whoever is from the people of good is from light. They say that effort must be made to free light from darkness, and this leads to taking every life.
Al Mutanabbi (d. 354AH) pointed to that in his famous poem:
“How many favours the darkness of night has done for you, while it tells that the Manichaeans lie.”
Bahram, the grandfather of Kisra, used a strategy against Mani until Mani came to him. He apparently showed that he had accepted his saying, then he killed him and killed his companions. Some remnants of them remained and followed Mazdak, who was mentioned earlier.
Islam then came, and the word zindiq was applied to whoever believed that. Some of them apparently showed Islam out of fear of being killed. Because of that, the name was then applied to everyone who hid disbelief and outwardly showed Islam, until Malik (d. 179AH) said: “Zandaqah is what the hypocrites were upon.”
Likewise, a group of Shafiʿi jurists and others said: the zindiq is the one who apparently shows Islam and hides disbelief. If they meant that they share the same worldly ruling, then that is correct. Otherwise, their original root is what I have mentioned.
Al Nawawi (d. 676AH) said in Lughat Al Rawdah by Al Nawawi: “The zindiq is the one who does not follow a religion.”
Muhammad ibn Maʿn said in Al Tanqib ʿala Al Muhadhdhab by Muhammad ibn Maʿn: “The zindiqs are from the thanawiyyah. They say that time remains forever and that beings pass from one body to another.” He said: “Among the zindiqs are the Batiniyyah.
They are a people who claimed that Allah created something, then created from it another thing, and that it then arranged the whole universe. They call them intellect and being, and at times, the first intellect and the second intellect. This comes from the saying of the thanawiyyah about light and darkness, except that they changed the two names. They have foolish sayings concerning Prophethood, altering verses, and the obligations of worship.”
It has been said that the reason why the jurists explained the zindiq as they explained the hypocrite was the statement of Al Shafiʿi (d. 204AH) in Al Mukhtasar by Al Shafiʿi: “Whatever disbelief he apostatised into, whether from what he shows or hides, of zandaqah and other than it, then if he repents, execution is dropped from him.”
This does not require that the zindiq and the hypocrite are one and the same. Rather, every zindiq is a hypocrite, but not every hypocrite is a zindiq. Those who were called hypocrites in the Qur’an and the Sunnah apparently showed Islam and inwardly hid idol worship or Judaism. As for the thanawiyyah, it is not preserved that any of them apparently showed Islam during the time of the Prophet ﷺ. Allah knows best.
The transmitters have differed over those regarding whom this incident occurred with Ali, as I will explain. In the early period of Islam, Al Jaʿd ibn Dirham (d. 124AH) became known, so Khalid al Qasri (d. 126AH) slaughtered him on the day of Eid Al Adha.
Then they increased during the state of Al Mansur (d. 158AH), and some of them openly showed their belief to him, so he wiped them out by killing them. Then his son Al Mahdi (d. 169AH) searched for them in large numbers and killed them.
Then during the days of Al Ma’mun (d. 218AH), Babak al Khurrami (d. 223AH), with two opened ba letters and then a light kaf, and Khurrami with dammah on the kha and a doubled ra, came out. He took control of Bilad al Jabal, killed Muslims, and defeated armies, until Al Muʿtasim (d. 227AH) gained power over him and crucified him. He had followers called the Khurramiyyah, and their stories are well known in the books of history. (It is also called Bilad al Jibal, in the plural, and Iraq al Ajam. The most important cities of this region were Isfahan, Hamadhan, and Qazwin. Today, it lies in western Iran. See Muʿjam Al Buldan by Yaqut, under “Al Jibal”.)
His Saying: “That Reached Ibn Abbas”
I have not found the name of the one who conveyed it to him. At that time, Ibn Abbas was the governor of Basrah on behalf of Ali.
The Prohibition Of Punishing With Fire
His saying, “due to the prohibition of the Messenger ﷺ: ‘Do not punish with the punishment of Allah'”, means due to his prohibition of killing by fire, because of his saying: “Do not punish.” This may be something that Ibn Abbas heard from the Prophet ﷺ, and it may be something that he heard from some of the Companions.
It has already come in the chapter, “None Punishes With The Punishment Of Allah”, from the hadith of Abu Hurayrah (d. 57AH): “The Messenger ﷺ sent us and said: ‘If you find so and so and so and so, burn them.'” The hadith contains: “Fire is not used as punishment except by Allah.” (Sahih Al Bukhari 3016)
I explained there their names and what relates to the explanation of the hadith. With Abu Dawud, from Ibn Masʿud (d. 32AH), in another incident: “It is not proper for anyone to punish with fire except the Lord of the fire.” (Sunan Abi Dawud 2675)
His Saying: “I Would Have Killed Them”
His saying, “I would have killed them due to the statement of the Messenger ﷺ”, appears in the narration of Ismail ibn Ulayyah (d. 193AH) with Abu Dawud (d. 275AH), in both places, with the wording: “For the Messenger ﷺ said…” (Sunan Abi Dawud 4351)
His Saying: “Whoever Changes His Religion, Kill Him”
His saying, “Whoever changes his religion, kill him”, has an addition in the narration of Ismail ibn Ulayyah: “That reached Ali, so he said: ‘May Ibn Abbas’ mother be bereaved of him.'” This is how it is with Abu Dawud. With Al Daraqutni (d. 385AH), it appears without the word “mother.” (Sunan Abi Dawud 4351) (Sunan Al Daraqutni 3182)
It is possible that Ali was not pleased with Ibn Abbas’ objection and thought that the prohibition was for dislike, not absolute impermissibility, as the explanation of the disagreement has already passed. In the hadith after this, the madhhab of Muʿadh (d. 18AH) concerning that will come, and that if the imam sees it fit to make the matter severe in this way, he may do so.
This is based on explaining the word “wayh” as a word of mercy, so Ali felt pity for him because Ibn Abbas carried the prohibition upon its apparent meaning, believed it to mean absolute impermissibility, and therefore objected.
It is also possible that Ali said it in approval of what Ibn Abbas said, meaning that Ibn Abbas had preserved what Ali had forgotten, based on one of the explanations of “wayh”: that it is said for praise and amazement, as Ibn Al Athir mentioned in Al Nihayah by Ibn Al Athir. It seems he took that from the saying of Al Khalil (d. 175AH): it is used in a place of gentleness and approval, as when one says to a child: “Wayh, how beautiful he is.” Al Azhari (d. 370AH) mentioned this.
The word “whoever” is general, but excluded from it is the one who changes it inwardly while that is not established against him apparently. Such a person is dealt with according to the rulings of what is apparent. Also excluded from it is the one who changes his religion apparently under compulsion, as will come after this in the Book of Compulsion.
The Ruling Of The Apostate Woman
This hadith has been used as proof for killing the apostate woman just as the apostate man is killed. The Hanafis specified it to men, and they held on to the hadith prohibiting killing women.
The majority carried the prohibition upon an original non Muslim woman when she has not directly fought or killed, because in some routes of the hadith prohibiting the killing of women, when the Prophet ﷺ saw a woman who had been killed, he said: “This one was not one who would fight.” Then he prohibited killing women. (This already passed as Sahih Al Bukhari 3014, and Muslim brought it out in Sahih Muslim 1744.) (Ahmad 15992, Ibn Majah 2842, and Al Nasa’i in Al Sunan Al Kubra 8572 brought it out from the hadith of Rabah ibn Al Rabiʿ, and its chain is hasan.)
They also argued that the conditional wording “whoever” does not include the feminine.
This was answered by saying that Ibn Abbas, who narrated the report, said that the apostate woman is killed. Abu Bakr (d. 13AH) killed a woman who apostatised during his caliphate, while the Companions were many, and no one objected to him. Ibn Al Mundhir (d. 318AH) brought all of that out. Al Daraqutni brought out the report of Abu Bakr through a hasan route. He also brought out a raised report similar to it concerning killing the apostate woman, but its chain is weak. (Ibn Abbas narrated that in the story of the woman who used to insult the Prophet ﷺ and speak against him. He forbade her, but she did not stop, so he killed her. Then he informed the Prophet ﷺ of that, so he said: “Bear witness that her blood is wasted.” Abu Dawud 4361 and Al Nasa’i 4070 brought it out, and its chain is strong.)
(Abu Ubayd brought it out in Al Amwal by Abu Ubayd, 484, Ibn Shahin in Nasikh Al Hadith wa Mansukhuh by Ibn Shahin, 558, Al Daraqutni 3202, and Al Bayhaqi 8/204, through the route of Saʿid ibn Abd al Aziz al Tanukhi, as a mursal report. Al Bayhaqi also brought it out in 8/204 through the route of Khalid ibn Yazid ibn Abi Malik al Dimashqi, also as a mursal report. By the joining of these two mursal reports, the report may be graded hasan. Allah knows best.)
(Rather, it is mursal)
(If the hafiz intended the hadith of Aishah that is with Al Daraqutni 3214, then it is weak, as the hafiz said. If he intended the hadith of Jabir ibn Abdullah that is with Al Daraqutni 3215 and 3216, then it is weak, as he said. But if he intended the hadith of Ibn Abbas concerning the woman who used to insult the Prophet ﷺ, then his grading of weakness is not accepted, because its chain is strong, as we explained shortly before.)
They argued through reasoning by saying that an original non Muslim woman may be enslaved, so she becomes spoils for the fighters, whereas the apostate woman is not enslaved according to them. There is no spoils in her, so killing her is not left.
There occurs in the hadith of Muʿadh that when the Prophet ﷺ sent him to Yemen, he said to him: “Any man who apostatises from Islam, call him back. If he returns, then leave him. If not, strike his neck. Any woman who apostatises from Islam, call her back.
If she returns, then leave her. If not, strike her neck.” Its chain is hasan, and it is explicit concerning the point of disagreement, so it is obligatory to return to it.
It is also supported by the fact that men and women share all the hudud (fixed punishments): zina, theft, drinking wine, and slander. Among the forms of zina is stoning the married person until death. That was excluded from the prohibition of killing women. Likewise, killing the apostate woman is excluded. (Al Tabarani brought it out in Al Muʿjam Al Kabir 20/93 and in Musnad Al Shamiyyin 3586. In its chain is Muhammad ibn Ubayd Allah al Arzami, and there is agreement upon his weakness, as Al Dhahabi said. Because of him, the chain cannot be graded hasan as the hafiz said. Stronger than it is the hadith of Ibn Abbas that we mentioned earlier.)
Does The Hadith Include Moving From One Non Muslim Religion To Another?
Some Shafiʿis used this hadith as proof for killing the one who moves from one religion of disbelief to another religion of disbelief, whether he is from those whose people are accepted upon it by jizyah or not.
Some Hanafis answered that the generality in the hadith relates to the person who changes, not to the act of changing. As for the act of changing, it is unrestricted, not general. Even if generality were accepted, its apparent meaning is left by agreement in the case of a non Muslim who embraces Islam, because he enters into the general wording of the report, but he is not intended by it.
They also argued that disbelief is one religion. If a Jew becomes Christian, he has not left the religion of disbelief. Likewise, if an idol worshipper becomes Jewish, it becomes clear that the intended meaning is the one who changes the religion of Islam to another religion, because the religion in reality is Islam. Allah the Exalted said:
إِنَّ الدِّينَ عِندَ اللَّهِ الْإِسْلَامُ
“Indeed, the religion before Allah is Islam.” (al Imran 19)
Everything besides it is only religion according to the claim of the one who claims it.
As for the statement of Allah the Exalted:
وَمَن يَبْتَغِ غَيْرَ الْإِسْلَامِ دِينًا فَلَن يُقْبَلَ مِنْهُ
“Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted from him.” (al Imran 85)
Some Shafiʿis used it as proof and said: It is taken from this that he is not left upon that. It was answered that this is apparent concerning the one who apostatises from Islam, meaning that he is not left upon that. Even if we accept it, it does not follow from the fact that it is not accepted from him that he is not left under jizyah. Rather, lack of acceptance and loss are only in the Hereafter.
Even if we accept that lack of acceptance proves that he is not left upon it in this life, what is understood is that he is not left upon it. So if he returns to the religion he was previously upon, and he had been left upon it under jizyah, then killing him if he does not embrace Islam is not required, while it is possible to fulfil the meaning by saying: we do not accept it from him, and we do not kill him.
What supports specifying the hadith to Islam is what has come in some of its routes. Al Tabarani brought it out through another route from Ikrimah, from Ibn Abbas, raised to the Prophet ﷺ: “Whoever opposes his religion, the religion of Islam, strike his neck.” (Al Muʿjam Al Kabir 11617) (In its chain is Ibrahim ibn Al Hakam ibn Aban, and he is weak. The specification to Islam has come in the hadith of Uthman ibn Affan with Ahmad 437, Abu Dawud 4502, and Al Nasa’i 4019, in his statement: I heard the Messenger ﷺ say: “The blood of a Muslim person is not permissible except for one of three: a man who disbelieves after his Islam…” Its chain is authentic.)
Killing The Zindiq Without Asking Him To Repent
This hadith has also been used as proof for killing the zindiq without istitabah (asking him to repent). This was answered by saying that in some of its routes, as already came, Ali asked them to repent.
Al Shafiʿi has explicitly said, as already came, that repentance is accepted without restriction. He said: “The zindiq is asked to repent just as the apostate is asked to repent.”
From Ahmad (d. 241AH) and Abu Hanifah (d. 150AH), there are two narrations. One of them is that he is not asked to repent. The other is that if it happens repeatedly from him, his repentance is not accepted. This is the saying of Al Layth (d. 175AH) and Ishaq ibn Rahawayh (d. 238AH). It was reported from Abu Ishaq al Marwazi (d. 340AH), one of the Shafiʿi imams, but it is not established from him. Rather, it has been said that this is a distortion from Ishaq ibn Rahawayh.
The first is the well known view among the Malikis. It was also reported from Malik that if he comes repenting, his repentance is accepted, otherwise it is not. Abu Yusuf (d. 182AH) said this, and it was chosen by the two imams, Abu Ishaq al Isfarayini (d. 418AH) and Abu Mansur al Baghdadi (d. 429AH).
From the rest of the Shafiʿis, there are several ways like the madhahib already mentioned. A fifth way is to distinguish between the caller to it and others: the repentance of the caller is not accepted, while the repentance of one who is not a caller is accepted. Ibn al Salah (d. 643AH) gave fatwa that if the zindiq repents, his repentance is accepted and he is disciplined. If he returns to it, we hasten to strike his neck and he is not given time.
Those who prevented accepting his repentance used as proof the statement of Allah the Exalted:
إِلَّا الَّذِينَ تَابُوا وَأَصْلَحُوا
“Except those who repent and make things right.” (al Baqarah 160)
They said: the correction of the zindiq cannot be known, because the corruption came only from what he hid. If he is discovered and then apparently shows that he has left it, he has not added anything beyond what he was already upon.
They also used as proof the statement of Allah the Exalted:
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا ثُمَّ كَفَرُوا ثُمَّ ءَامَنُوا ثُمَّ كَفَرُوا ثُمَّ ازْدَادُوا كُفْرًا لَمْ يَكُن اللهُ لِيَغْفِرَ لَهُمْ
“Indeed, those who believed, then disbelieved, then believed, then disbelieved, then increased in disbelief, Allah will not forgive them.” (al Nisa 137)
The answer is that the intended meaning is those who die upon that, as Ibn Abbas explained it in what Ibn Abi Hatim (d. 327AH) and others brought out. (Tafsir Ibn Abi Hatim by Ibn Abi Hatim, 4/1091)
Malik used as proof that the repentance of the zindiq cannot be known. He said: The Prophet ﷺ only refrained from killing the hypocrites for the sake of bringing hearts together, and because if he had killed them, he would have killed them based on his knowledge. It would not have been safe from someone saying: “He only killed them for another meaning.”
Among the proofs of those who ask them to repent is the statement of Allah the Exalted:
اتَّخَذُوا أَيْمَنَهُمْ جُنَّةً
“They took their oaths as a shield.” (al Mujadilah 16)
This indicates that apparently showing oaths protects from killing. All of them agreed that the rulings of this life are based on what is apparent, and Allah takes care of the hidden matters.
The Prophet ﷺ said to Usamah (d. 54AH): “Did you split open his heart?” (Sahih Muslim 96)
He said to the one who secretly spoke to him about killing a man: “Does he not pray?” He said: “Yes.” He said: “Those are the ones I have been forbidden to kill.” (Sahih Muslim 1064)
It will come soon, in Sahih Al Bukhari 6933, that in some routes of the hadith of Abu Saʿid (d. 74AH), when Khalid ibn al Walid (d. 21AH) asked permission to kill the one who objected to the division, and said: “How many people pray while saying with their tongues what is not in their hearts?” The Prophet ﷺ said: “I have not been commanded to search into the hearts of people.” Muslim (d. 261AH) brought it out. (Sahih Muslim 1064)
The hadiths concerning this are many.
Fath al Bari bi Sharh Sahih al Bukhari by Ibn Hajar al Asqalani 22/183–191
