The debate around this issue has intensified recently as people have become more open to one another, leading to a division among people into two groups:
1- A group believes that the punishment for apostasy has been established through the verbal tradition and actions of Abu Bakr, along with the companions.
2- Another group believes that there is no prescribed punishment for apostasy itself but that the mentioned punishment arises from an additional act beyond mere apostasy. Here, I will provide evidence from both sides as concisely as possible to reach a conclusion:
Firstly, those who affirm the punishment for apostasy:
Here, we find a consensus-like view among Islamic jurists and scholars of various Islamic schools of thought, including the four major Imams. We will now briefly mention some of their statements:
Hanafi School of Thought: In the Hanafi school of thought, as mentioned in the book “Al-Mabsut” by Al-Sarakhsi, which is considered a significant source in the Hanafi jurisprudence, it is stated: “When a Muslim apostatizes, Islam is offered to him. If he embraces Islam again, that is accepted. Otherwise, he is executed immediately, unless he requests a delay. If he does so, a delay of three days is granted. The basis for the obligation to kill apostates is the saying of Allah, exalted be He: “{Or they submit} [Al-Fath, 48:16].” It has been said that this verse pertains to apostates. Additionally, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Whoever changes his religion, then kill him.” The execution of apostates for their apostasy is narrated from Ali, Ibn Mas’ud, Mu’adh, and other companions, may Allah be pleased with them. This is because the apostate is in a similar position to the Arab polytheists or even more severe in his crime, as they were close relatives of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the Quran was revealed in their language. Yet, they did not respect this when they associated partners with Allah. Similarly, the apostate was originally a follower of the religion of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and was aware of the merits of his Sharia. However, he did not respect it when he apostatized. Just as the Arab polytheists are given the choice between embracing Islam or facing the sword, the same applies to apostates. However, if an apostate requests a delay, he is granted three days. This is because it appears that he may have fallen into doubt that led to his apostasy, and we need to remove that doubt. Alternatively, he may need time for reflection to ascertain the truth, and that can only be done through an extension. If he requests an extension, it is upon the Imam to grant him that extension. The period for consideration is determined in Islamic law to be three days, as mentioned in “Al-Khiyar” (the choice). Therefore, he is granted three days if he requests an extension, and it should not exceed that. If he does not request an extension, he is executed immediately, according to the apparent narration.”
The Maliki school of thought:
In the book “Bidayat al-Mujtahid wa Nihayat al-Muqtasid” by Ibn Rushd, it is mentioned: “If an apostate is apprehended before engaging in combat, there is a consensus that he should be killed. This is based on the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him): ‘Whoever changes his religion, then kill him.’ … As for offering him a chance to repent (istitaba), Malik conditioned istitaba before killing on what was narrated from Umar. Some people say that his repentance should not be accepted… Then he said: But if the apostate engages in combat and is subsequently apprehended, he should be killed by al-hirabahb (highway robbery punishment.), and there is no room for offering him a chance to repent. His killing is valid whether he was found within the realm of Islam or after joining the territory of warfare unless he embraces Islam.”
The Shafi’i school of thought:
Imam Al-Shafi’i stated in his book “Al-Umm” (The Mother): “If someone who attained puberty initially moved from disbelief to belief and then reverts from belief to disbelief, whether they are men or women, they should be offered the opportunity to repent. If they repent, then their repentance is accepted. However, if they do not repent, they are to be killed. Allah, Almighty, says: “{But they will not cease fighting you until they turn you back from your religion, if they can} until {they will abide therein eternally.} [Al-Baqarah, 2:217].” Moreover, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “The blood of a Muslim is not lawful except under one of three situations: disbelief after belief, adultery after marriage, and taking a life unjustly without a life in return.”
The Hanbali school of thought:
It is mentioned in “Al-Mughni” by Ibn Qudamah: “An apostate is one who reverts from the religion of Islam to disbelief. Allah, the Most High, says: ‘{And whoever of you reverts from his religion [to disbelief] and dies while he is a disbeliever – for those, their deeds have become worthless in this world and the Hereafter, and those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein eternally.}[Al-Baqarah, 2:217].”
It is also said: “The scholars unanimously agree on the obligation to kill the apostate. This has been narrated from Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Mu’adh, Abu Musa, Ibn Abbas, Khalid, and others, and it has not been disputed. Therefore, it constitutes consensus.”
This is a summary of the views expressed by the four major Imams, and they supported their positions with various evidences, including:
1- They hadith narrated by Ibn Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him) in which he reported that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “The blood of a Muslim who bears witness that there is no god but Allah, and I am the Messenger of Allah, is not permissible to shed except for one of three reasons: a married person who commits adultery, a life for a life, and one who forsakes his religion, separating from the community.” [Agreed upon by Bukhari and Muslim]
2- The hadith narrated by Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) in which the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Whoever changes his religion, then kill him.” This hadith is reported by the majority of hadith compilers except for Muslim.
3- What Lady Aisha narrated: She said, “Have you not known that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said, ‘The blood of a Muslim is not permissible except in one of three cases: a married person who commits adultery after marriage, one who reverts to disbelief after embracing Islam, and one who kills another soul.”’ [Reported by Al-Nasai with a good chain of narration.]
4- From Abu Musa: A man embraced Islam and then reverted to Judaism. He came to Mu’adh ibn Jabal while Abu Musa was with him and said, “What is this (man)?” Mu’adh replied, “He embraced Islam and then reverted to Judaism.” Mu’adh added, “I will not sit down unless I kill him as it is the verdict of Allah and His messenger (peace be upon him).” [Agreed upon by Bukhari and Muslim]
5- Abd al-Razzaq narrated in his Musannaf that Ibn Mas’ud took a group of people in Iraq who had apostatized from Islam. He wrote to Umar about them, and Umar wrote back, saying, “Present to them the true religion and the testimony that there is no god but Allah. If they accept it, leave them, but if they do not accept it, then kill them.” Some of them accepted it and were spared, while others did not accept it and were killed.
These are the evidence that are cited by those who argue for the punishment of apostasy.
Secondly, those who reject the punishment for apostasy:
These individuals represent a segment of scholars who have recently examined the issue in light of the objectives of Islamic law (Maqasid al-Sharia). Their viewpoint asserts that there is no fixed punishment of death for mere apostasy from Islam. Instead, a penalty may be imposed for other reasons, such as engaging in warfare against Islam and its adherents, causing corruption in the land, or posing a threat to societal peace. In such cases, the penalty is not in the form of a fixed punishment (Hadd) but rather falls under the purview of legitimate Islamic policy and the authority of the ruler, serving to protect a range of rights. In their perspective, mere apostasy does not carry the Hadd punishment.
They support their perspective with evidence from the Quran and other sources, including:
1- Verses that emphasize there is no compulsion in religion:Such as:
{There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong.}[Al-Baqarah, 2:256].”
“And say, ‘The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills – let him believe; and whoever wills – let him disbelieve.'” (Al-Kahf, 18:29)
{So remind, [O Muhammad]; you are only a reminder. You are not over them a controller.}[Al-Ghashiyah, 88:21-22].
“Indeed, you cannot guide whom you love, but Allah guides whom He wills.” [Al-Qasas, 88:56].
“So would you compel the people until they become believers?” [Yunus, 10:99]
In addition to other verses that permit choice and do not imply worldly punishment for those who differ.
2- They also argue by the action of the Prophet, peace be upon him, that he never killed an apostate in response to their apostasy. For example, Abdullah bin Saad bin Abi Sarh apostatized, and he was not killed. Indeed, his story is well-known. When the verse from Surah Al-Mu’minun (The Believers), verse 12, was revealed: “And We certainly created man from an extract of clay,” the Prophet called him and recited it to him. When he reached the part that says, “Then We developed him into another creation. (verse 14), Abdullah was amazed by the detailed description of the creation of man and said, “Blessed is Allah, the best of creators!” then, the Prophet, peace be upon him, said, “This is how it was revealed to me.” At that moment, Abdullah became doubtful and said to himself, “If Muhammad is truthful, then the revelation to me should be the same as the revelation to him. And if he is lying, then I can say what he says.” As a result, he apostatized from Islam and joined the polytheists. When the Prophet, peace be upon him, entered Mecca, he ordered the execution of Abdullah bin Abi Sarh, Abdullah bin Khatal and Miqyas bin Subabah if they were found, even if they were hiding beneath the covers of the Kaaba. Abdullah bin Abi Sarh, however, managed to flee to Uthman, who was his foster brother as they had been breastfed by the same woman. Uthman hid him until he brought him to the Prophet, peace be upon him, once the people of Mecca had settled down and were at peace, Uthman brought him to the Prophet and vouched for his safety. The Prophet remained silent for a while and then said, “Yes.” After Uthman left, the Prophet, peace be upon him, said, “I remained silent only because someone from among you would have stood up and killed him.” A man from the Ansar then said, “Why didn’t you just signal to me, O Messenger of Allah?” The Prophet replied, “A prophet should not have treacherous eyes.”
Indeed, the indication here is that if there were a prescribed punishment for apostasy, the Prophet would not have needed to signal or rely on the initiative of the companions to carry out the punishment. Instead, the prescribed punishment would have been applied, and the apostate’s repentance would not have been accepted.
Ubaidullah bin Jahsh apostatized and converted to Christianity, and the Prophet did not request from Negus (An-Najashi) to send him back or have him killed.
They also argue with the hadith of the Bedouin, which is found in Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, and other collections. It is narrated by Jabir bin Abdullah that a Bedouin pledged allegiance (bay’ah) to the Prophet, peace be upon him, for Islam. However, the Bedouin fell ill in Madinah and asked the Prophet, “Cancel my pledge of allegiance.” The Prophet initially refused. The Bedouin repeated his request two more times, and each time, the Prophet refused. Finally, the Bedouin left, and the Prophet, peace be upon him, remarked, “Madinah is like a furnace that removes its impurities and leaves what is pure.”
They said that this Bedouin wanted to leave Islam, but the Prophet did not allow him, as reported by some explainers. So, he left on his own, and the Prophet did not send anyone to execute him as a punishment.
The Prophet did not kill any of the hypocrites, even though he knew them individually. He refused to kill Abdullah ibn Ubayy ibn Salul, and he did not kill the man who said about him: ” There would arise a people from the progeny of this (man) who would recite the Qur’an glibly, but it would not go beyond their throats; they would (hurriedly) pass through (the teachings of their) religion just as the arrow passes through the prey. .”
The hadith narrated by Abu Sa’id al-Khudri: “Ali b. Abu Talib sent to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) from Yemen some gold alloyed with clay in a leather bag dyed in the leaves of Mimosa flava. He distributed it among four men. ‘Uyaina b. Hisna, Aqra’ b. Habis and Zaid al-Khail, and the fourth one was either Alqama b. ‘Ulatha or ‘Amir b. Tufail. A person from among his (Prophet’s) Companions said: We had a better claim to this (wealth) than these (persons).This (remark) reached the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) upon which he said: Will you not trust me, whereas I am a trustee of Him Who is in the heaven? The news come to me from the heaven morning and evening. . Then there stood up a person with deep sunken eyes, prominent cheek bones, and elevated forehead, thick beard, shaven head, tucked up loincloth, and he said: Messenger of Allah, fear Allah. He (the Holy Prophet) said: Woe to thee. Do I not deserve most to fear Allah amongst the people of the earth? That man then returned. Khalid b. Walid then said: Messenger of Allah, should I not strike his neck? Upon this he (the Holy Prophet) said: Perhaps he may be observing the prayer. Khalid said: How many observers of prayer are there who profess with their tongue what is not in their heart? Upon this the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: I have not been commanded to pierce through the hearts of people, nor to split their bellies (insides). He again looked at him and he was going back. Upon this he (the Holy Prophet) said: There would arise a people from the progeny of this (man) who would recite the Qur’an glibly, but it would not go beyond their throats; they would (hurriedly) pass through (the teachings of their) religion just as the arrow passes through the prey. I conceive that he (the Holy Prophet) also said this: If I find them I would certainly kill them as were killed the (people of) Thamud.” (Al-Bukhari and Muslim)
Even though the man rejected the Prophet’s command and criticized him, which amounted to disbelief, the Prophet dealt with him outwardly. Rejecting the prophet’s command and accusing him are considered disbelief and apostasy.
Apart from that, there are various pieces of evidence mentioned by those who denies the punishment for apostasy.
What we choose and adhere to as our belief in God is that there is no punishment for apostasy, and leaving the religion of Islam for another is considered disbelief (kufr), but it does not, in and of itself, warrant a punishment. Unless there is another element that warrants punishment, and in that case, the punishment is determined accordingly. Our evidence for this, in addition to what has been previously mentioned, is as follows:
1. The argument is that a severe punishment like execution should not be absent from the Quran, which has spoken about less severe penalties such as flogging and amputation. Especially considering that the Quran has elaborated on the punishment of execution; it has mentioned it in cases of retribution (qisas) and in cases of banditry (hirabah).
– Therefore, in this matter, one should not rely on narrations like the ones mentioned earlier, especially when it concerns matters related to human life, which must be preserved, considering that this is one of the objectives of Sharia.
2. The verse that mentions apostasy in the Quran is devoid of any worldly punishment and only speaks of the punishment in the Hereafter. Allah says: “And whoever of you reverts from his religion [to disbelief] and dies while he is a disbeliever – for those, their deeds have become worthless in this world and the Hereafter, and those are the companions of the Fire, they will abide therein eternally.” (Al-Baqarah, 2:217)
And Allah also says: “O you who have believed, whoever of you should revert from his religion – Allah will bring forth [in place of them] a people He will love and who will love Him.” (Al-Ma’idah, 5:54)
Here, the verse nullifies the deeds of those who revert from their religion, but it does not prescribe a specific worldly punishment. The opportunity to mention a punishment could have arisen here, but instead, the verse talks about replacement (replacement of people), which is a different aspect.
3- Allah, in another context, has stated: “Indeed, those who have believed, then disbelieved, then believed, then disbelieved, and then increased in disbelief – never will Allah forgive them, nor will He guide them to a way.” (Quran, An-Nisa: 137)
The question is if the punishment for apostasy is death, then how can someone revert to disbelief after embracing Islam? The fundamental issue is that, following their initial apostasy, the prescribed punishment (hudud) should be applied if applicable.
Similarly, His statement: “Indeed, those who disbelieved after their belief and then increase in disbelief, never will their [claimed] repentance be accepted, and they are the ones astray.” (Al-Imran, 3:90) emphasizes the consequences of persisting in disbelief, indicating a punishment in the Hereafter.
4-What is narrated by Masruq regarding the reason for the revelation of the verse: “There is no compulsion in religion” (Al-Baqarah, 2:256).
Masruq said: “There was a man from the Ansar, from the Bani Salim ibn ‘Awf tribe, who had two sons. They had embraced Christianity before the Prophet, peace be upon him, was sent as a prophet. Later, they came to Medina with a group of Christians carrying food. Their father then approached them and insisted, saying, “By Allah, I will not leave you until you both embrace Islam.” However, they refused to convert. So, they brought the matter to the Prophet, peace be upon him, and the father said, “O Messenger of Allah, shall a part of me enter the Fire while I am watch?” At that, Allah revealed the verse: ‘There is no compulsion in religion; the right course has become clear from the wrong.’ (Quran, Al-Baqarah: 256), and they were allowed to follow their own path.”
The evidence here is that if there were a specific punishment for apostasy in this situation, the Prophet would not have left them after their persistent refusal to embrace Islam.
5. The text of the verse “There is no compulsion in religion” is definitive in its establishment and indication, and it is general, not subject to specification. The negation in it applies to the entire category without exception in all its forms.
Applying the punishment for apostasy or threatening it constitutes a form of compulsion. How can a person preserve their life from death as a punishment and safeguard their choice without coercion?
The existence of such a punishment produces a hypocritical and fearful society. It compels people to fear changing their religion, even if they are not convinced by it, which can lead them to profess belief with their tongues while disbelieving in their hearts. This is the condition of hypocrites, which is worse than disbelief. It also reflects a weakness in Islam in the face of other beliefs, as resorting to violence to coerce people implies that Islam is unable to persuade individuals through its teachings alone.
The evidence cited by proponents of the punishment for apostasy is subject to interpretation and not definitive. For example, the hadith that states, “Whoever changes his religion, then kill him,” is general in its wording. The additional phrase “changes his religion” is not specific to Muslims alone but is general and applies to any religion and to anyone who changes their religion. Therefore, if a Christian converts to Judaism, this hadith would apply to them, and vice versa. “And if someone wishes to restrict its application, they would need specific evidence, as the Prophet, in similar situations, often provided more specific and contextualized guidance. For example, he would say, ‘Whoever introduces something into our affairs…’ and thereby restrict and specify the scope of his statement through addition and demonstration.”
It is well-known that Islam does not intervene if someone from other religions changes their faith. Ibn Abidin in his commentary (Hashiya) stated: “If a Jew were to convert to Christianity or engage in Mazdaism, or if a Christian were to embrace Judaism or engage in Mazdaism, they would not be compelled to revert to their original religion because all forms of disbelief are considered as one category.”
The hadith (the one who leaves their religion) entails the imposition of a punishment for two combined aspects: “(the one who leaves their religion and separates from the community). Leaving the religion is a descriptive term regarding the action itself, and leaving the community is also a descriptive term concerning the act of separation. Otherwise, it would lack meaning, as every apostate inherently separates from the community by association. Therefore, in language, it becomes a descriptive term without substance. What is being suggested here is that leaving the community implies that the one who separates from it is actively opposed to its system with the intent of causing harm, rather than merely departing from it.
So, if someone leaves Islam individually without ridiculing the religion, without posing a threat to the community or the religion itself, and without intending to disrespect the feelings or rituals of Muslims, but rather, the sole reason for leaving is their personal conviction of disbelief in Islam and belief in something else, and they do so peacefully and privately, then such an individual should not face the punishment of death. They should have the freedom to do so as long as their departure does not pose a threat to social peace, even if their action is considered an act of disbelief.
The hadith of (the one who leaves their religion) does not have generalization. According to the Hanafi school of thought, there is no death penalty for a female apostate. Instead, she is held in confinement until she repents or dies. Some scholars have concurred with this view. This stance is based on the Prophet’s prohibition of killing a female disbeliever who does not engage in combat or incite others to fight. Therefore, the punishment for a female apostate is different in this context.
Al-Zayla’i stated in (Tabyeen al-Haqa’iq): “A female apostate is not to be killed; instead, she is to be detained until she embraces Islam.”
– Therefore, this text does not have a general application in our context. It is specific to the case of a woman and is also linked to the additional description of either fighting against the community or betraying them.
– The belief in the punishment of apostasy does not serve any beneficial purpose. Islam emphasizes the principle of treating others as one would like to be treated. We, as followers of Islam, invite people to the religion of Islam and accept their conversion to Islam. We reject coercion in matters of faith and advocate for individuals’ freedom of choice. We also stand up for them if they face pressure from their church or family, for example. In return, we should accept the same spirit of fairness and justice and leave the choice of religion to individuals. Interaction with them should be based on their choices in matters of faith and daily life, not through threats or violence.
– Therefore, what I believe is that there should not be a physical punishment for merely changing one’s religion. This should be left to individuals. The texts, in my view, manifest support for this perspective in the Quran, Sunnah, and the actions of the companions. Punishment should be imposed only if there is another act associated with apostasy, such as treason against the nation or aiding enemies, or if it threatens social peace among people and incites discord, or if it involves blasphemy against religions or other actions that warrant punishment.
And Allah knows best.
Fatwa by Dr. Khālid Naṣr