[l] It is important here to consider the traditional understanding of the background to this passage (4:88-89). It is thought to refer to a particular group of alleged Arab converts to Islam who later relapsed into paganism.[12] These individuals, known as the Hypocrites (munafiqun), nearly caused a disaster for the Muslim cause when they deserted at the Battle of Uhud (625 A.D.). The Muslims of Medina were divided as to whether the Hypocrites should be put to the sword or left alone. Eventually a middle course was decided upon as prescribed in these verses. That is, they were treated with caution, but given the opportunity to make good ("flee from what is forbidden") and be re-admitted into the fold of Islam. The instruction to "seize them and slay them wherever ye find them" applied to those who subsequently deserted again. They were considered both enemies and deserters and were to be punished with death, "the penalty of desertion which is enforced by all nations actually at war".[13]
It is, in fact, the commentators who have extended the application of the instruction about seizing and slaying to all apostates. This could be considered as a legitimate part of the processes called ijma‘, qiyas, and ijtihad, that were used to formulate Shari‘ah. Ijma‘ means consensus, qiyas means analogy, and ijtihad means applying reason and effort in interpretation. These processes enabled Muslims to derive all the various rules for an Islamic way of life from the primary sources of Qur’an and hadith.
[/l]
[l] Note on "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (2:256) [/l]
[l]
The Qur’anic verse "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (2:256) is often quoted by Muslims when describing their faith to non-Muslims. But this verse has a variety of interpretations: 1. Muslims are free to leave their own religion without expecting any punishment (this is a minority view held by modernists and apologists who claim later verses and hadith cannot be used as a justification for ignoring a fundamental and eternal Qur’anic principle)[14]; 2. Non-Muslims are not to be forced to convert to Islam; 3. Muslims are not compelled to perform specific Islamic duties; they are free to neglect, if they so choose, their religious obligations.
The traditional view is that this verse has been abrogated by the Sword verse (9:5) and the similar harsher verses quoted above that were revealed to Muhammad at a later date in history.[15] Abrogation of earlier Qur’anic verses by later ones is an accepted doctrine of Islamic interpretation.
[/l]
[l] The Hadith [/l]
[l]
While the Qur’an is ambiguous on the penalty for apostasy, and does not appear to have any universally applicable command to kill apostates, this is not true of the hadith and of Qur’anic commentaries. It is also a fact of history that apostates were killed in the time of Muhammad on his orders, and immediately after his death by the first Caliph, Abu Bakr, in the Ridda (apostasy) Wars.
The strongest evidence Muslim jurists use to prove that apostasy is a hadd offence punishable by the death penalty is based on a few hadith,[16] the clearest one narrated by Ikrima, from Ibn Abbas.
Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57: Narrated 'Ikrima:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment ( ).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his [Islamic] religion, then kill him.' "
From this hadith (appearing in variants in several collections) it is clear that the penalty for apostasy ordained by Muhammad is death, though it should not be by burning. It is on this hadith that most jurists base their view that the apostate must be sentenced to death. They point out that the words "kill him" appear as a grammatical imperative in Arabic, implying an order, which must be obeyed.[17] Although Bukhari’s collection of hadith is considered the most authoritative collection, some scholars claim that this specific hadith is a weak tradition (i.e. not reliable)[18]. While this is the most direct hadith dealing with apostasy, there are a number of other hadith dealing indirectly with the penalty for apostasy from Islam:
Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17: Narrated ‘Abdullah
Allah’s Apostle said: "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married man who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and the one who reverts (separates himself) from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.
(This hadith also appears with slight variations in Bukhari, 9:17; 12.169; Muslim, 11, 89-90; Abu- Dawud 4; 487; Al-Tirmidhi 993; Mishkat al Masabih, 3466).
Many jurists rely on this hadith in their claim that Muhammad prescribed the death penalty for apostasy. However some claim that those who separate themselves from the community are those who fight against it, not simply change their religion.[19]
Another hadith used to justify capital punishment for apostasy deals with some people from the tribe of ‘Ukal:
Bukhari, 1.234; Narrated Abu-Qilaba,
Anas said, "Some people of ‘Ukal or ‘Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them. So the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) camels and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they went as directed and after they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away all the camels. The news reached the Prophet early in the morning and he sent (men) in their pursuit and they were captured and brought at noon. He then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron, they were put in ‘Al-Harra’ and when they asked for water, no water was given to them." Abu-Qilaba said, "Those people committed theft and murder, became infidels after embracing Islam and fought against Allah and His Apostle." (4.261)
This hadith is repeated several times and implies that while the punishment for theft was the cutting off of their limbs, they were then killed for rejecting Islam and becoming infidels, i.e. apostatising. However not all jurists agree with this, some claiming the death penalty was imposed for armed robbery (hiraba).[20]
[/l]
cont.
|