Death Penalty for Apostates

From Is Apostasy a Capital Crime in Islam?:

icforumadmin wrote: Is Apostasy a Capital Crime in Islam? http://www.fiqhcouncil.org/node/34

After replying to the above post, I realized that it was in the moderated "Basics of Islam" section, so I thought it would be better to move my reply to here.
-------------

 

Author: Dr. Jamal Badawi

Not that I want to engage in ad hominem, but I don't understand how Badawi qualifies as an authority on Sharia law.  According to what I could find online, he has a Ph. D. in education (Management), and is a prolific author and public speaker on Islamic matters; but he has no formal training that I can see in sharia.

Regarding the topic, I agree that there is no hard evidence for the death penalty for apostacy in the Quran, but I think he is wrong in his dismissal of the many hadith in support of it.

The [First] Hadeeth: Jabir Bin Abdullah narrated that a bedouin pledged allegiance to the Apostle of Allah for Islam [i.e. accepted Islam] and then the bedouin got fever whereupon he said to the Prophet [ P] �cancel my pledge.� But the Prophet [ P] refused. He [the bedouin came to him [again] saying, �Cancel my pledge.� But the Prophet [ P] refused. Then he [the Bedouin] left [Medina]. Allah�s Apostle said �Madinah is like a pair of bellow [furnace]: it expels its impurities and brightens and clear its good.� Some have argued that may be the man in question wanted to be relieved of his oath [Bay�ah] not to leave Madinah. This argument lacks any support textual or otherwise. In fact the wording of this particular Hadeeth clearly indicates that the subject of the oath [Bay�ah] was to willingly accept Islam. Thus his request to be relieved form that oath meant that he wanted to apostate.

Exactly, he wanted to apostate.  But did he?  Apparently not.  He asked to cancel his pledge, and was turned down.  There is nothing suggesting that he actually renounced his faith after Muhammad forbade him to do so.  Besides, the man fled to Mecca, away from Muhammad's jurisdiction, so sharia law no longer applied.

The Second Hadeeth: Abdullah narrated that Allah�s Apostle said, �The blood of a Muslim, who confesses that there is no God but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits adultry and the one who reverts from Islam (apostates) and leaves the [Muslim] community.� This Hadeeth has been interpreted in more than way. The Prophet speaks here of three capital crimes, the third of which is apostating and parting with the [Muslim] community. If mere apostating and parting peacefully with the Muslim community without committing any act of treason against them justifies the death penalty, then why did the Prophet [ P] let the man in the [first] Hadeeth cited above go unmolested?

Explained above.  Moreover, even if we assume the first hadith argues against the death penalty, it is the only one of the four hadith discussed here that does so.  It would still be three hadith in favour of the death penalty, and only one opposed.  Muhammad could have had many reasons for leniency in a particular case.  If Allah is merciful, why can't Muhammad also be merciful on His behalf?  It doesn't necessarily invalidate the general rule.

The Third Hadeeth: Ibn Abbas narrated the Prophet said �Whoever changed his religion, then kill him�. This Hadeeth is perhaps the most quoted one by those who are of the view that apostasy is a capital crime. ... 5. As Dr. El-Awwa observes, the expression �kill him� does not necessarily mean a mandatory command. In fact, one of the basic principles of Islamic jurisprudence is that the command verb could mean a mandatory command [such as prayers, Zakah and fasting]. It could refer to an optional act [like optional night prayers]. It could also mean permissibility of an act and several other meanings. It is the presence of corroborating evidence or lack thereof that determines the proper contextual meaning. In the light of the evidence discussed above, the Prophet�s command here seems to refer to the permissibility of capital punishment, when apostasy is coupled with a capital crime such as waging war against the community.

It is scarcely better to argue that the death penalty is even permissible, rather than mandatory.

6. Dr. Al-Qaradawi suggests another possible meaning of this Hadeeth: �..there is another possibility; that Omar�s opinion is that when the Prophet [ P] said �whoever changes his religion, then kill him�, the Prophet [ P] said that in his capacity as the leader of the community and head of state and that this was one of the executive decisions by the authorities [one of the actions that falls within Al-Syaasah al-Shar�iyyah] and not a religious verdict [Fatwa] or transmission [of a verdict] of God which is binding on the Ummah [Muslim community] at all times and everywhere and under all circumstances.� 21 This indicates also that punishment for apostasy, if any [as the Prophet himself did not mete to the man who apostated and left Madinah], is not a mandatory fixed punishment [Hadd]. Other evidence to that effect was elaborated on by Dr. El-Awwa.

It is hard to see how a ruling that begins, "whoever changes his religion", could be anything other than a religious ruling.  Nonetheless, I can heartily agree with the main thrust of Dr. Al-Qaradawi's argument: that "this was one of the executive decisions by the authorities ... and not ... binding on the Ummah [Muslim community] at all times and everywhere and under all circumstances."

But if that can be said for a hadith about apostacy, then why not for beards and hijabs and prayers and pictures and on and on?  Why aren't all hadith regarded as mere executive decisions in response to historical circumstances, and not binding for all time?  As I've said here many times, if the hadith were intended to apply for all time, then why didn't they receive the same divine protection from corruption for all time, as the Quran was protected? 

Edited by Ron Webb - 02 June 2015 at 7:51am

786iec wrote: human beings, as well as all living matter, will certainly die is such an established fact, that it is believed in by all people, irrespective of whether they believe in God or not, and nobody can really object to the process of death. Secondly, you cannot be so naive as to object to the process of illness - whether it being cancer or any other illness, or an accident, etc. - as a prelude to the process of death. Your objection stems from your misconception that 'goodness' is to relieve suffering, and to cause suffering is being 'cruel'. If this was so, then, you have no choice but to agree that the cruellest people in the world are the medical research-scientists who use animals for all their horrible experiments. Surely you must be aware of the thousands upon thousands of animals that are tortured in different ways and made to suffer a million agonies to prove or disprove certain scientific and medical claims? Are these experimenters not cruel?

The option to do nothing is easy to argue.

The option to try to find an end to a problem take courage and will require hard work.

The minimum number of animals are used to test scientific ideas. A lot less than are killed to be eaten by men called Dave.

I do object to the fact that I will one day die. I don't want to. I do want to increase the world's understanding of disease to the point where we can cure cancer all of the time.

These experiments are as uncruel as they can be.

786

human beings, as well as all living matter, will certainly die is such an established fact, that it is believed in by all people, irrespective of whether they believe in God or not, and nobody can really object to the process of death

No, even here you can object. Obviously there is no human that has escaped the final destiny (yet). However it seems that death is the price for being a multicellular being (as we are). Many, if not most of the single cell beings do not die of age, they simply clone themselves (yes, I know that this is not always true) and both daughter cells keep on living happily until they suffer a violent death or up to the next division.

Science -opposite to religion- teaches you to distrust even what you might consider as your most solid feelings and impressions- like the universal fatality for example.


Airmano

Edited by airmano - 17 April 2015 at 7:47am

human beings, as well as all living matter, will certainly die is such an established fact, that it is believed in by all people, irrespective of whether they believe in God or not, and nobody can really object to the process of death. Secondly, you cannot be so naive as to object to the process of illness - whether it being cancer or any other illness, or an accident, etc. - as a prelude to the process of death. Your objection stems from your misconception that 'goodness' is to relieve suffering, and to cause suffering is being 'cruel'. If this was so, then, you have no choice but to agree that the cruellest people in the world are the medical research-scientists who use animals for all their horrible experiments. Surely you must be aware of the thousands upon thousands of animals that are tortured in different ways and made to suffer a million agonies to prove or disprove certain scientific and medical claims? Are these experimenters not cruel?