:salamext:
The ruling for apostasy has been mentioned in authentic hadeeth and scholars have quoted a consensus that the apostate is to be executed by the Muslim authorities, after being given time to review his decision. If you search well-known fatawa websites you will find them stating thus;
Among the crimes whose doer deserves to be killed is Riddah (leaving Islam or disbelieving in one of its tenets)...
[...]
Among the evidences, we have also the consensus of the companions after the death of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) that anyone who changes his or her religion (Islam) should be killed.
Ibn Qudama said:
'All the scholars of Islam are agreed that the apostate is to be killed.' There is no difference in this rule between the man and the woman. But
Abu Hanifa believes that the apostate woman should be jailed and forced to return to Islam but not executed. But the most preponderant opinion is that she is like the man in this rule.
It should be noted here that this punishment is carried out only by the Muslim authorities. So, no individual should give himself the right to act on behalf of the authorities.
The apostate is first told to repent and given three days to decide. If he confesses in front of a Qadi, who has the necessary authority to apply the death penalty, that he does not want to repent, then he is executed. [/quote]
http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=85488
...The punishment for apostasy from the religion of Islam is execution. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And whosoever of you turns back from his religion and dies as a disbeliever, then his deeds will be lost in this life and in the Hereafter, and they will be the dwellers of the Fire. They will abide therein forever”
[al-Baqarah 2:217]
And it was proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:
“Whoever changes his religion, execute him.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari in his
Saheeh. What this hadeeth means is that whoever leaves Islam and changes to another religion and persists in that and does not repent, is to be executed. It was also proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:
“It is not permissible to shed the blood of a person who bears witness that there is no god but Allaah and that I am the Messenger of Allaah except in three cases: a life for a life, a previously-married person who commits adultery, and one who leaves Islam and forsakes the jamaa’ah.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari and Muslim...
https://islamqa.info/en/12406
The corporal punishment that should be implemented on an apostate is death as the Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi Wasallam) said:
“Whoever changes his religion, kill him.”
[...]
The punishment to an apostate is death, this is also according to the Ijma’ (concensus) of the Fuqaha (jurists). (Al Mabsoot Lis Sarakhsi Vol. 10 Pg. 98, Badai’ 7/134, Raddul Muhtar 4/226- Darse Tirmidhi 5/111)
You made me realise something fundamental.. (I think). It is that Shariah Law is not rigid, it is flexible. A person who is forced to steal (because of fear of death by poverty, etc.) is not to be punished. Because life is more important than wealth.
Laws change based on circumstances. Generally, a theif's hands is to be cut off, but in certain circumstances, you can not do that. Because if one dies by not stealing, then one has to steal, even if the victim losses wealth. Because life is more important than wealth.
So only the apostates who pose a risk to society, are to be executed?
JazakAllah khayr.
With regards to the Maqasid of Shariah and the example of Umar :ra: not cutting the hand of the thief during the time of famine, the following extract mentions important principles and clarification:
...Allah is the most eloquent in speech and precise in conveying His intent. His words coupled with the authentic Sunnah form the basis of Law and Islam. There is unanimous agreement that the Qur’an and the authentic Sunnah are the two main reference points in every issue. In stark contrast, that which is known as ‘the spirit of the law’ (the aims of the shari’ah) are the result of human reasoning (Ijtihad) and are not fundamental pillars upon which the law is based. Instead, they are matters open to discussion, addition or deletion (as is apparent by the aforementioned difference on the precise number of Maqasid). Thus, they are not an independent Islamic source which stands at the same rank as the sources themselves such as the Qur’an and Sunnah[SUP]18[/SUP]. If the Maqasid are not equal to the sources of Islam; the Qur’an and Sunnah, can they be given authority to override any part of those sources? Was the intent of deriving these Maqasid and this spirit to make them a moderator over the revelation?
The finite and deficient creation cannot encompass the infinite perfection and wisdom of its Lord. It is therefore not fitting that the intellect be the soul reference in deciding the intent of Allah. The revelation came to complete the intellect of man and strengthen it by providing a stable, constant and consistent framework within which to operate. The revelation on the other hand is not in need of being supported nor completed[SUP]19[/SUP]. The perfect wisdom of Allah is better suited to prescribe the greatest benefit to mankind in all matters, and any explicit command or proscription from Him reflects this infinite wisdom. A command in the revelation to do something is nothing other than an explicit intent of the Shari’ah that is realised by enacting that order[SUP]20[/SUP]. Thus, “Cut off the thief’s hand, male or female, as a recompense for that which they committed, a punishment from Allâh. And Allâh is All-¬Powerful, All-¬Wise”[SUP]21[/SUP] ‘is an order to establish a legal aim which is to protect (possessions and) wealth which cannot be attained except by cutting the thief’s hand. It cannot be said that cutting the thief’s hand will cause harm to the perpetrator of the crime and this contradicts the preservation of life which is an aim of the Shari’ah, or that this punishment is not suited to a modern civilised society geared to preserving life and limb. This understanding completely removes Allah’s commands in achieving His intent; rather it contradicts those aims’[SUP]22[/SUP]. Such a perspective and approach results in rendering the Shari’ah inconsistent such that it could never be from God the All-Wise.
It is preposterous that so called ‘evidence’ to support the notion of innovation and extending beyond the ‘literal’ dictates of revelation attempts to misconstrue an action of a companion such as Umar (RA); one who was famous for his precise execution of the letter of the law in all affairs, perhaps even for his stringency in doing so. The case in question is when he did not apply the prescribed punishment of cutting the thief’s hand during a time of famine. The reality of the matter, however, just proves Umar’s strict adherence to the letter of the law. In relation to this incident Ibn al-Qayyim relates the agreement of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal with Imam al-Awzaee regarding ceasing the cutting of hands in a time of famine: ‘this is pure analogy and what the principles of the Shari’ah demand. During a famine people are overcome by need and necessity, such that it is rare for a thief to be free of dire need for what will end his hunger. This is a doubt which prevents cutting (the hand) of the one in need and it is stronger than many of the doubts that the jurists mention’[SUP]23[/SUP]. Umar understood that the cutting of the hand only applied where there was no doubt involved in the crime, a principle not only agreed upon by the ummah from the time of the companions, rendering it mandatory to follow and obey[SUP]24[/SUP], but a principle that even exists in ‘progressive’ legislative systems today. In times of famine the struggle is to stay alive even if that means theft. Thus, establishing whether the theft was committed out of dire necessity or not would become mandatory so as to remove any doubt concerning applying the prescribed punishment. Dealing with the famine and removing the doubt around theft would allow the application of this commandment with certainty as required[SUP]25[/SUP]. Umar (RA) showed clearly in his action how the revelation deals with the prescribed punishments in circumstances which force people to commit crimes. It was not the setting of a precedent but rather the application of what he learnt from the actions of the Prophet (saw) in ascertaining the cause for committing the crime with certainty before applying the punishment. Also, it is important to note that Umar (RA) did not announce a moratorium publicly, or even a temporary one, but when the case was brought before him for judgement he ruled that the punishment of theft should not be executed due to doubt surrounding the crime[SUP]26[/SUP]. The Prophet (saw) specifically[SUP]27[/SUP] ordered the Muslims to follow in the footsteps of Abu Bakr and Umar specifically and the rightly guided caliphs generally[SUP]28[/SUP], so thus, what Umar did was already a divinely sanctioned implementation of the revealed law and as for those who come later then their Ijtihad does not have the same divine approval and authority.
Conclusion
It is not for the Mujtahid (the scholar who makes Ijtihad) to create or prescribe what is best for mankind[SUP]29[/SUP]. His role is to apply what has been explicitly stated by the revelation; without contradicting it, to all circumstances and events. {quotes}Intellectual opinions and thought must work within the limits set by revelation and not attempt independence.{/quotes}
Such an attempt would lead to the denial of Islam in totality. The revelation sets explicit limits and boundaries for mankind. If the violation of these limits is allowed then the revelation has been rendered futile. In the words of Shatibi: ‘If the intellect is allowed to violate the limits set by revelation then there is no purpose of those limits. Since the aim was to set a limit, if it is allowed to go beyond that limit then the limit is useless, and this in the Shari’ah is batil’[SUP]30[/SUP]...
We must be careful when discussing Islamic rulings and where there is doubt we must refer them to the People of Knowledge. We cannot put forward our own opinions and thoughts and ignore the proper methodology used in deriving rulings, otherwise we will end up following our desires and not the Revelation of Allaah :swt:. If you look at
this post, you will gain an idea of the breadth of topics a student of knowledge must study. This short video posted
here also highlights the depth and complexity involved as well as the need to humble ourselves when speaking about deen.
May Allaah :swt: guide us to the correct understanding of His deen and forgive us for our errors, Aameen.
