|
Clarification on Dr. Zakir Naik's reply on the Punishment for Apostasy (riddah) in Islam
by Sajid Kayum on Thursday, 17 February 2011 at 23:11
Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Raheem
Here is a clarification on some serious misunderstanding that can occur as a result of Dr. Zakir Naik's answer at the Oxford Union Debate on the issue of
"Punishment of Riddah (apostasy) in Islam"
In reply to a question, Dr. Zakir Naik said,
"�death penalty is not the standard punishment for any Muslim who leaves his faith and professes any other religion�" and he substantiated it by stating that Muslim who converted to another faith, was pardoned by Allah's Messenger (sallallahu alaihe wasallam) according to hadeeth no. 4345 from Sunan Abu Dawood.
The answer to this in brief is that Dr. Zakir's statement is factually false. Killing is the standard and only prescribed punishment for the murtad (apostate, one who leaves Islam). [Pl. see the fatwa of Allamah Ibn Baaz (rahimahullah) mentioned later]. The hadeeth from Sunan Abu Dawood that Dr. Zakir referred to in support of 'pardoning' the apostate, is actually mentioned by the scholars in support of killing the apostate, because the incident (mentioned in this hadeeth) is not about pardoning the apostate, for his apostasy (leaving Islam), at all.
The summary of the incident in the narration is that Abdullah ibn abu Sarh accepted Islam and was one of the scribes of the Qur'aan. He then became an apostate and returned to Meccah. After the conquest of Meccah, the Prophet (salallahu alaihe wasallam) ordered the killing of Abdullah ibn abu Sarh and some others, even if they were found clinging to the curtains of the Kaaba.
Abu Sarh hid in the house of Uthmaan ibn Affan (radhiallahu anhu), and came along with him to Allah's Messenger salallahu alaihe wasallam to enter Islam again, but the Prophet refused three times. He sallallahu alaihe wasallam finally accepted Abu Sarh's return to Islam because of hayaa for Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu). The Prophet salallahu alaihe wasallam hoped that while he refused to accept Abu Sarh's return to Islam three times, one of his companions would kill him.
Therefore, this incident is not about pardoning the murtad (apostate) who insists upon his apostasy (which is the situation Dr. Zakir was asked about). Rather the incident is about the Prophet's refusal to accept Abu Sarh's "return to Islam" three times because of the severity of his crime, while hoping that one of his sahabah would come forward and kill him.
Following is a detailed response based upon the Tafseer and Fatawa of the scholars
But firstly, the reason we find it necessary to prepare this response
The extremely serious matter of riddah (apostasy � i.e., changing one's deen from Islam to some other religion) and its true scholarly understanding is lightened by the way Dr. Zakir Naik responded.
This mistake will be relayed over and over again via the satellite and on the internet, and those who trust and admire Dr. Zakir will accept this mistake without verification.
We have many avid fans of Dr. Zakir who defend those mistakes � not to mention the many 'Zakir-imitator daees' who copy his speeches, his style, his way of dress, his gestures, and even his natural peculiarities. It is very likely that this reply of Dr. Zakir Naik will be repeated at seminars and lectures, either as it is or with further exaggeration.
Lastly, and most importantly this time around, Dr. Zakir has stated that he is sending out a message to millions of Muslims via the Peace TV channel; on an issue of the sharee'ah, not comparative religion.
Thus is demolished the great and almost impenetrable excuse of Dr. Zakir's admirers, that even if he made a mistake or used a bad choice of words � his explanation should not be scrutinized as it was meant to explain a concept to non-Muslims in a manner that they can understand. And that sometimes Dawah needs to be sugar-coated for the sake of hikmah.
They give this excuse, despite the fact that 99.99% of Dr. Zakir's audience are Muslims, who are learning their deen from him.
The transcript of the question and the reply by Dr. Zakir Naik
Question: Hi my name is John and I am a doctoral student from the USA. My question has to do with persecution, specifically how former Muslims are sometimes killed if they have chosen to leave Islam, deciding that another religion is more true.
For example my girlfriend is Turkish and she lives in turkey, she used to be Muslim but she decided to become a Christian after understanding Jesus in a new way as god made flesh.
She's had fears in the past that she may be harmed or even killed for her decision.
In light of the recent attention to this matter in Pakistan with Miss. Bibi and the blasphemy laws my question is this - what are you doing to educate or you plan to do to educate the Muslims that if someone chooses to leave Islam that person should not be killed?
Answer by Dr. Zakir Naik:
"� the brother has asked a very important question and he said that what if a person who is practicing Islamic faith changes to any other faith, is it required that he should be killed?
And all these articles that came about me - a preacher of hate - one of the point was that Dr. Zakir prescribes death penalty for those Muslims who leave their faith and they profess any other faith.
Again these reports were out of context, they took up a portion of my speech where I said that many scholars say that a Muslim who leaves his faith and professes any other religion, death penalty is the punishment but I went on to further say that death penalty is not the standard punishment for any Muslim who leaves his faith and professes any other religion.
I gave the example that once during the time of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), there was a Muslim who converted to another faith and had done some wrong deed for which the Prophet had told that he should be put to death, but later on when Hazrat Uthman approached the Prophet and he said that the man should be forgiven, the Prophet pardoned him.
This incident proves that death penalty is not the standard rule for any Muslim who changes his faith. If he does some act which requires to be punished by death depending upon the act he has done but according to Islam and according to Prophet (peace be upon him) - according to me - death penalty is not the standard rule for any Muslim who changes his faith and professes any other religion - and that's what I have told in my talks - but unfortunately what they do - �.
(and Dr. Zakir continues to speaks about the injustice of those who misquote him and call him a preacher of hate�.)
The Questioner then asked if Dr. Zakir would continue to educate the Muslims around the world about this?
Reply by Dr. Zakir Naik: Brother, this I have mentioned in several of my speeches. Now when you ask this question, I gave the reply.
There are tens of millions of people watching this program on 'Peace TV', they are being educated that death penalty is not the standard rule but why will they believe in me because I have given the reference. I gave the reference of the saying of Prophet from Abu Dawood. I am giving the reference for authenticity - Abu Dawood, vol. 3, hadeeth no. 4345.
Now when I give reference� anyone can go and check up. In this hadeeth, the prophet pardoned the person who was a Muslim and changed to another faith.
Now the difference between my answer and the other answers are that the other people just say without giving reference. Now when I give a reference, � � this gives more authenticity and I am sure now, there are millions of Muslims who will agree that death penalty is not the standard rule for any Muslim who changes his faith to any other religion� �" [end quote]
___________________________________________________________________
The narration which Dr. Zakir Naik gave the reference to is as follows:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: Abdullah ibn Abu Sarh used to write (the revelation) for the Apostle of Allah (salallahu alaihe wasallam). Satan made him slip, and he joined the infidels. The Apostle of Allah (salallahu alaihe wasallam) commanded to kill him on the day of Conquest (of Mecca).
Uthman ibn Affan sought protection for him. The Apostle of Allah (salallahu alaihe wasallam) gave him protection." (Abu Dawood, Book #38, Hadith #4345)
___________________________________________________
What will the people understand from Dr. Zakir Naik's reply and the brief narration of Abu Dawood?
a) The listeners will be under the impression that killing is not the standard punishment for Riddah (apostasy, turning away from the religion of Islam), while in realty it is the standard punishment, though the actual execution of an apostate may not be carried due to weakness of the Muslim nations in applying the hudood.
b) The listener will be misguided that the Hadeeth supports the pardoning of apostasy, while in reality, Riddah is the greatest crime in Islam, and the Murtad is far worse than the original disbeliever. [A detailed explanation from the books of tafseer to follow insha'allah]
Shaikh ul-Islam Ibn Taymeeyah said in Majmoo al-Fatawa (2/193) in his refutation of the Batini Ittihadis, "It is known that the disbelieving Tatars are better than these � because these are murtads (apostates) from Islam and of the worst people of Riddah � and the murtad is more evil than the original (disbeliever) from many aspects." [More to follow on the gravity of Riddah.]
c) Dr. Zakir's statement, "� many scholars say that a Muslim who leaves his faith and professes any other religion, death penalty is the punishment"; indicates that this is an issue of disagreement amongst the scholars, while such is not the case. Those who disagree are not scholars, but hadeeth-rejectors, liberalists, proponents of western-style individual freedom, and others innovators of this category.
All of these three points are further corroborated by the following Fatawa by Allamah Abdul-Aziz ibn Baaz (rahimahullah) from Majmoo Fatawa:
Question: I heard in one of the radio interview programs that there is no proof from the Qur'aan, Hadeeth or Islamic fatawa for the permission of killing the apostate from Islam, please explain how sound is this (statement)?
Answer: The noble Qur'aan and the purified Sunnah have proven the killing of the murtad if he does not repent as in Soorah Tawbah, "� But if they repent and perform As-Sal�t (Iq�mat-as-Sal�t), and give Zak�t, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." [Soorah Tawbah (9): 5]
This verse proves that those who do not repent, their way should not be left.
And in Saheeh al-Bukharee from Ibn Abbas (rahiallahu anhuma) from the Prophet (sallallahu alaihe wasallam), "Whosoever changes his deen then kill him."
And in the Saheeh from Mu'adh (rahiallahu anhu) that he said when he saw a murtad with Abu Moosa al-Ash'ari (rahiallahu anhu) in Yemen, "I will not dismount � i.e., his riding animal until he is killed�"
There are many proofs of this and the people of knowledge have explained these proofs in the chapter of, 'Ruling concerning the Murtad' in all four madhhabs. Whosoever wishes to know these proofs, then he should look into the above-mentioned chapter.
Whosoever denies it (i.e., the killing of the apostate) is a Jahil (ignorant) or deviant � his sayings should not be given any consideration, rather he should be advised and educated perhaps he might be guided, and all guidance is with Allah." [end quote of Allamah Abdul-Aziz ibn Baaz]
More on the seriousness of the crime of Riddah
Shaikh ul-Islam Ibn Taymeeyah said in Majmoo al-Fatawa (34/213), "The ruling of Murtad is more evil than the ruling of a Jew or a Christian."
Shaikhul-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (rahimahullah) said in Majmoo al-Fatawa, (20/102) "� If the murtad is not killed, those who are in the deen will leave it, killing of the murtad is protecting the people of the Deen and the Deen, it prevents them from going out of the deen�"
There are specific rulings for the murtad. The wife of the murtad is separated from him, and his blood is no longer sanctified. He is neither washed nor prayed upon, and he is not buried in the graveyards of the Muslims, he does not inherit (from the Muslims), nor is he inherited from � rather his wealth goes to the treasury of the Muslims. He is deprived of Duaa being made for him, and neither is forgiveness sought for him.
These rulings show the seriousness of the crime of Riddah. As for declaring someone a Murtad and levying the punishment for it, than it is only for the Sharee'ah courts. As Shaikh al-Fawzaan (hafidhahulah) explained, "� the ones who gives the ruling of Riddah are the judges of the Sharee'ah court, and those who execute this ruling are the leaders of the Muslims � and anything apart from this is chaotic and evil." (al-Muntaqa)
The Muslim ruler summons the murtad, establishes the hujjah upon him and asks him to repent, and if he does not repent then the ruler will establish the hadd (punishment) upon him.
A Detailed narration from Abu Dawood concerning the incident,
Sunan Abu Dawood contains a much more detailed account of the incident that clarifies the reality of the matter, yet Dr. Zakir Naik chose to give the reference of a very brief narration, that fits his distorted view. The detailed narration is as follows �
"Narrated Sa'd, "On the day when Mecca was conquered, the Prophet of Allah (sallallahu alaihe wasallam) gave protection to the people except four men and two women and he named them. Ibn Abu Sarh was one of them� Ibn Abu Sarh hid himself with Uthman ibn Affan.
When the Prophet of Allah (sallallahu alaihe wasallam) called the people to take the oath of allegiance, he (Uthmaan) brought him and made him stand before the Prophet of Allah. He (Uthmaan) said, "O Prophet of Allah, receive the oath of allegiance from him."
The Prophet (sallallahu alaihe wasallam) raised his head and looked at him thrice, denying him every time. After the third time, the Prophet received his oath.
The Prophet then turned to his companions and said, "Is not there any intelligent man among you who would stand to this (man) when he saw me desisting from receiving the oath of allegiance, and kill him?"
They replied, "We do not know, O Prophet of Allah, what lies in your heart? Had you given us an hint with your eye?"
The Prophet said, "It is not proper for a Prophet to have a treacherous eye." [Abu Dawood (book no. 14, no.2677)]
From the Tafseer of Imam Qurtubi
To know more about Abu Sarh, we quote below the words of Imam Qurtubi from his Tafseer, "al-Jame li-Ahkaam al-Qur'aan" explaining the verse, "Who can be more unjust than he who invents a lie against Allah, or says� "I will reveal the like of what Allah has revealed." [Soorah al-An'aam: 93]
Imam Qurtubi writes, "The person meant in the Saying of Allah, '' who says, 'I will reveal the like of what Allah has revealed." � is Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh, who used to write the revelation for the Prophet of Allah, then he apostatized and joined the mushrikeen.
The reason behind that is � as the interpreters have mentioned � when the verse (12) of Soorah al-Mu'minoon was revealed, "Indeed, We created man (Adam) out of an extract of clay (water and earth)."
The Prophet called Abu Sarh and dictated it to him and when he reached to the verse, 'and then We brought it forth as another creation.' [Soorah al-Mu'minoon (23): 14] Abdullah ibn Sarh was amazed by the details of the creation of man and said, "So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators."
The Prophet (sallallahu alaihe wasallam) said, 'this is how it was revealed to me.' (but) Abdullah doubted it and said, 'If Muhammad is truthful, then it is revealed to me the like of what is revealed to him, and if he is a liar then I have said what he has said.'
So, he committed Riddah and joined the mushrikeen � that is the saying of Allah, ''and who says, "I will reveal the like of what All�h has revealed." � reported by al-Kalbi from Ibn Abbas (rahiallahu anhuma).
It is mentioned by Muhammad ibn Ishaq, Sharhabil said to me, "The verse, 'and who says, I will reveal the like of what Allah has revealed', was revealed concerning Abdullah ibn Sa'ad ibn Abi Sarh.
He had apostatized from Islam. So, when Allah's Messenger (sallallahu alaihe wasallam) entered Makkah, he ordered his killing, and the killing of Abdulllah ibn Khatal and Muqees ibn Sababa � even if they were found under the curtains of Ka'ba.
So, Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh fled to Uthmaan (radiallahu anhu), who was his foster brother � his mother had suckled Uthmaan.
Uthmaan (radiallahu anhu) hid him until he brought Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh to the Prophet after the people of Makkah had settled and he sought security for Abdullah but the Prophet kept silent for a long time and then said, 'Yes.'
When Uthmaan left, Allah's Messenger said, 'I kept quiet so that some of you would kill him.'
A man from the Ansaar said, 'If only you had hinted me, O Messenger of Allah.'
Allah's Messenger said, 'Treachery of the eye does not befit the Prophet.'
Abu Umar said, 'Abdullah ibn Sa'ad ibn Abi Sarh accepted Islam during the days of the conquest of Makkah, and his Islam was excellent and nothing which could be reproached appeared from him and he was one of the wise and noble from the Quraysh� Then in the year, 25H Uthman (radiallahu anhu) appointed him the governor of Egypt. And Africa was conquered at his hand in the year 27H � (and his other achievements)" [end quote of Imam Qurtubi]
The meaning of 'protection' in the narration of Abu Dawood is �
In the narration (no. 4345) that Dr. Zakir mentioned, "�Uthman ibn Affan sought protection for him. The Messenger of Allah (salallahu alaihe wasallam) gave him protection."
- Protection (or pardon) here is not about waiving the punishment of killing the murtad (apostate); but the protection means accepting the murtad�s repentance and accepting him back to Islam.
The incident shows the gravity of the situation in that the Prophet refused to accept Abu Sarh's repentance. The Prophet's attitude reflects the gravity of the crime, while Dr. Zakir Naik lightens the issue for all those who watch him when said, "� but later on when Hazrat Uthman approached the Prophet and he said that the man should be forgiven, the Prophet pardoned him"
Furthermore, by drawing the conclusion that, "In this hadeeth, the Prophet pardoned the person who was a Muslim and changed to another faith", Dr. Zakir Naik has understood the matter, completely opposite to that of the scholars � who mention this incident as a proof for killing the apostate, as in the next quote by Imam Ibn al-Qayyim.
Imam Ibn al-Qayyim writes about the incident,
"In it (i.e. the incident) is the understanding of the permissibility of killing the murtad whose riddah has become intense and he does not repent from it� (Imam Ibn al-Qayyim then mentioned the long narration of Abu Dawood, we quoted earlier)� �
� This was the one whose disbelief had become intense with his Riddah (apostasy) after Eeman, and the Prophet (sallallahu alaihe wasallam) wanted to kill him, but when Uthmaan ibn Affan came with him (i.e. Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh), who was his foster brother, the Prophet did not order to kill him due to Haya (discretion, prudence, honor) for Uthman. And the Prophet did not accept his (Abdullah ibn Sarh's) Bay'ah (oath of allegiance as a Muslim) so that some of his Sahabah would come forward and kill him, but due to respect for the Prophet, the Sahabah did not come forward to kill him without his permission and the Prophet felt haya for Uthman (radiallahu anhu) and thus, accepted his Bay'ah."
[end quote of Ibnil-Qayyim. Quoted from Majallah al-Buhooth al-Islami, issue. No. 77 1426-1427: Protecting the Muslim society from intellectual heresy, part 2, section.1]
Thus we understand from the whole incident,
The Prophet did not pardon the man for his changing his faith � rather Abdullah ibn Abu Sarh was not killed because he returned back to Islam.
If it were not for Prophet's Haya for Uthmaan (radiallahu'anhu), the man would have been killed because the Prophet (sallallahu alaihe wasallam) had already ordered the killing of the man due to apostasy, and he refused to accept his coming back to Islam initially.
Is giving reference enough?
Dr. Zakir Naik boasts in his answer
"Now when I give reference� anyone can go and check up. In this hadeeth, the Prophet pardoned the person who was a Muslim and changed to another faith.
Now the difference between my answer and the other answers are that the other people just say without giving reference.
Now when I give a reference, � � this gives more authenticity and I am sure now, there are millions of Muslims who will agree that death penalty is not the standard rule for any Muslim who changes his faith to any other religion�"
What distinguishes those upon the way of the SALAF, from those who are not upon it - is the understanding not the reference. Even the most devious and misguided of groups, whether they are the Qadianis, or the Ismailis or the Raafidah, they all give references from the Qur'aan and Sunnah to argue their ideas; but the question is � Do they understand those references from the Qur'aan and the Sunnah, the way they are supposed to be understood?
As for us, the Salafis or the ahlul-Hadeeth � the question we ask to the one who presents a matter of Deen to us, is �.
Who is your Salaf in this understanding? i.e. Who preceded you in this statement or understanding of yours?
If the answer is the sahabah or the Imams of Ahlus-Sunnah, then we know this to be a matter that is given consideration. If the answer is, this is speculation by a contemporary academic on an issue explained and agreed upon a 1000 plus years back, these views are not even given consideration � and the one who publicizes these issues amongst the people is considered a fitnah and a spreader of innovation.
Finally �
The lime-light and the media is a great fitnah, and there are so many whose judgments have been clouded by it, and we have always considered Dr. Zakir Naik to be amongst those who have taken the tremendous pressure well.
But off late one can clearly see serious lapses of judgment on his part. For instance, the disastrous program on NDTV, where Shah Rukh Khan forcefully advanced his evil ideas of Wahdat al-Adyaan (unity of religions). While it is understandable that Dr. Zakir was unable to respond during that NDTV program; his response that was aired on his own channel later was disappointing and devious.
Quoting the NDTV program:
SRK was asked, "If your kids asked you what is your religion, what would you say."
SRK replied, �My daughter asked me one day, she came back, and said teacher or somebody asked if she was Hindu or Muslim, and I said to her say you are Christian, its absolutely alright. We are Indians, let�s not go there. But yes I make them pray as much as I can in the Islamic way�.
Barkha interjects saying, �Both Faiths�.
He replied, �My wife does it in her faith. And the fact is we are very clear, we accept it with ease.� [End Quote]
����������..
Rather than clarifying SRK's statements of Kufr that were uttered on the NDTV program; Dr. Zakir Naik opted to put a positive spin to it all, and actually praised SRK's responses saying, they are far better and correct than others. He also claimed ignorance of what is well-known of SRK's mixing idol-worship with Islam � something a simple youtube search will reveal to any common person. While a lot more can be said, for now this should suffice.
And thus we ask Allah to keep us all steadfast upon his deen and to protect us from Fitan and temptations. We ask Allah for prudence and understanding of the deen, and safety from falling into misguidance.
-sajid
http://www.qsep.com/
|
Tweet
Punishment for Apostasy (riddah) in Islam
Topic Options
Chrysalis wrote: