Is punishment for leaving Islam death?

Question

It is commonly believed that if someone leaves Islam, by Sharia law the punishment is death. Is that true?

I have heard some different opinions. Dr. Zakir Naik was once asked a similar question and he responded that the punishment is death only if you tarnish Islam image in public and are publically against it. In that scenario the situation is similar to a revolt against an Army and hence punishment in that case is death.

However, Islam is not an Army but a religion. What is the correct verdict in this regard?

Answer 1

Yes, it is true that leaving Islam, in an Islamic state, can be a reason for someone to be put to death. Note the caveat: in an Islamic state. We do not have any Islamic state today; only Muslim countries who mix some parts of Islamic law with other types of law.

I think the question you're asking is more about why this might be the case. As you mentioned, Zakir Nike mentioned some points about tarnishing the image of Islam.

Consider also the following cases, as happened historically around the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him): individuals and groups who fought against Islam would enter Islam in the morning, leave it in the evening, and declare it to be false. Not because of any flaw of the deen, but in order to attack and denounce it further. There are some historical accounts of this happening.

One of the benefits and reasons that Allah declared this law, therefore, can be for the protection of the religion itself (which is one of the five aims of Islamic law).

Allah knows best; sometimes we know the reasoning and benefits behind certain laws of Islam, and sometimes we don't. As Muslims, we only need to submit, we do not need to understand the intricacies of each issue and the proofs surrounding it.

Answer 2

I have three points to make:

1. A hadith like "If somebody changes his religion, kill him", or other similar ahadith, lack the interpretive context necessary to situate it properly in the fiqh. A fuller rendition of the report may be found in the Muwatta:

   It is related from ‘Ikrima that ‘Ali burnt some people and that reached Ibn ‘Abbas who said, “If it had been me, I would not have burned them because the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, ‘Do not punish with Allah’s punishment.’ I would have killed them as the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, ‘If someone changes his religion, kill him.’” [Book 21, 15]

   The context is somewhat unclear here, as someone else is narrating Ibn 'Abbas' reference to something the Prophet said in the past tense in a rather complicated scenario. It seems plausible that the Prophet was speaking in reference to the saboteurs who made a theatrical outward show of conversion to Islam only to revert back to polytheism with equal show, or more seriously, to discover the Muslim's military weaknesses and report back to the enemy during the wars between the Mecca and Medina. Whatever the context it cannot be summoned as a warrant for personal anarchy and violence against people who are deemed to have "changed their religion."

2. The following is an example of how the Prophet dealt with solely apostasy:

   A bedouin gave the Pledge of allegiance to Allah's Apostle for Islam. Then the bedouin got fever at Medina, came to Allah's Apostle and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Cancel my Pledge," But Allah's Apostle refused. Then he came to him (again) and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Cancel my Pledge." But the Prophet refused Then he came to him (again) and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Cancel my Pledge." But the Prophet refused. The bedouin finally went out (of Medina) whereupon Allah's Apostle said, "Medina is like a pair of bellows (furnace): It expels its impurities and brightens and clears its good. [Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, #318]

   Notably, as Dr. M. E. Subhani explained in his book:

   This was an open case of apostasy. But the Prophet neither punished the Bedouin nor asked anyone to do it. He allowed him to leave Madina (of his own will). Nobody harmed him.” [Apostasy in Islam (New Delhi, India: Global Media Publications, 2005), pp. 23-24.]

3. This is the earliest musannaf (a hadith collection arranged in topical chapters) work in existence:

   Some people accepted Islam during the period of Umar bin Abdul Aziz, who is called the fifth rightful caliph of Islam. All these people renounced Islam sometimes later. Maimoon bin Mahran the governor of the area wrote to the caliph about these people. In reply Umar bin Abdul Aziz ordered him to release those people and asked him to re-impose jizya on them. [Musannaf Abdur Razzaq, pp. 171-10, cited in M. E. Subhani,Apostasy in Islam (New Delhi, India: Global Media Publications, 2005), pp. 23-24. Abdur Razzaq ibn Humama (d. 211 AH). ]

One more point worth mentioning: in the hadith mentioned in point 1, the word "religion" has been brazenly translated from the Arabic word "din". This is a mistranslation, as din does not stand for religion properly, but it "sort of" means way of life. The Arabic language does not even have a word for religion, strictly speaking: the word din, customarily translated as such, differs in significant important respects from the European concept. (See: The Meaning and end of religion by W.C. Smith).

Answer 3

Apostasy is an issue that has caused debate for quite sometime. In the end, the answer does should not apply to any people today since there is no Islamic state to uphold the judgement. And anyone who is carrying our Shari'ah criminal punishment is doing so against the Islamic law, since that would require an Islamic state with an established court. That being said, let's see how well I can answer this.

There are two types of apostasy in Islam. Simply Apostasy and Complete Apostasy. Let's look first at the two different definitions of these terms.

Simple Apostasy = No longer wishing to follow the Muslim faith and simply wishing to practice a separate religion other than Islam.

Complete Apostasy = Rejecting the faith of Islam while simultaneously attempting to undermine the Islamic state via violence or civil disorder by joining in the enemies of Islam in the sense of waging war on Muslims.

There is a consensus among scholars that complete apostates should be put to death. It basically equals the treason law that many countries follow. It is when you get to the idea of execution for simple apostasy you start seeing the differences of opinion.

It is the consensus of all four schools of thought within the Sunni tradition that apostates should be executed, however the argument comes from the question if these apostates are simple or complete apostates. Many people who support the execution law will quote the founding scholars of the four schools of thought saying that apostasy should be punished with execution, however, I have not seen any evidence explaining which types of apostates they are referring too. It also must be noted that some of the schools of thought traditionally supported the idea of fallibility among scholars and that fatwas were not the "rulings of God" but rather the opinions of those scholars. Traditionally the Hanafi school of though, the largest school of thought, even stated that fatwas be limited to specific times and places according to Islamic scholar Hamza Yusuf.

Bearing all of this in mind let us look at the Quran. Apostasy is mentioned 26 times in the Quran but yet there is no earthly punishment mentioned within the Quran. Muhammad himself was confronted with multiple apostates during his lifetime and there is no recorded evidence of him putting those apostates to death. Rather, he simply let them leave as long as they were peaceful about it.

There are also many quotes from the Quran that agree with this stance:

There is no compulsion in religion. Right has become distinct from wrong. So whoever rejects evil and puts faith in God has grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold that never breaks. And God is hearing, knowing. (2:256)

The apostasy law is first thought to gain large support during a time of struggle and religious upheaval within the time of the Islamic state. Bearing that in mind it's easy to see why the four schools of thought came down so hard on this decision, it was created as a way of protecting the state and religion during that time.

It is my firm belief from the research that I have done that there is no call for execution for simple apostasy within Islam. And, unfortunately, the apostasy law has been twisted to encompass people outside of it's original meaning.

Allow me to be clear, this seems to be a minority opinion based on the people I have dealt with. But I hope that it provides some insight into the debate. Since I am a new user, I can only post two links within my sources. I've provided the two that I feel best present my argument. One is a detailed look at the apostasy law, and the other is a video explaining how scholarly issued fatwas can become twisted into the dichotomy of the religion. I hope that you find the satisfactory.

Sources ##

http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=WLEAE27E576DF00F97&v=qY17d4ZhY8M&feature=player_detailpge#t=1712s

http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Apostasy1.htm

Answer 4

Based on the excellent discussion above, the issue may be summarized as:

• If it is an Islamic state and the apostasy is political, then it is akin to treason and the state should deal with it as such
• If it is not an Islamic state, or if it is and it is a bona fide decision of an individual's conscience, then there is no ikrah (compulsion)