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?

Assalamu Alaikum I have a friend who doesn't beleive in the death penalty for apostasy, so I tried to convince him using the example of the Sahabah, that they fought the the apostate tribes, and forced them to convert to Islam and pay Zakah. However, he thinks that theses tribes (like Banu Hanifah) 'claimed to be muslim' (even though, they obviously weren't muslim as they had accepted a false prophet), which is why it was necessary to compel them into giving Zakah. In other words, he beleives that if they had explicitly renounced Islam, Abu Bakr RA would have had no option but to take Jizya from them. So what I'm looking for here, is authentic/sound narrations to prove that any of these tribes had explicitly renounced Islam or explicitly denied the shahadah becuase he thinks that these tribes still beleived Muhammad SAW to be a Messenger, just not the last Prophet (which is obviously also kufr, but not explicit). So can y'all find some please :)

Bismillah, I've seen many answers on this website, and passages of books of fiqh where the author uses the verse of the sword (9:5): "kill the polytheists wherever you find them", to argue that all polytheists, everywhere in the world must be killed excluding the Jews, Christians and Magians (excluding the apostates among them). However, it apparently seems to me that this interpretation contradicts the very next verse which says: "and if any of the polytheists asks you for protection, then give hive him protection until he hears the word of Allah, then transfer him to his place of safety", so it seems that any polytheist can simply get away from execution by simply asking for amnesty! Now, I know that Imams Shafii and Ahmad RH were obviously not so dumb, that they would ignore the literal next verse. So I really wanted to understand it. I thus referred to modern commentaries like that of Mufti Taqi Uthmani, as well as the classical masterpiece called Tafsir alTabari. However, neither of them explained the verse to me in a satisfactory way. I'm still really confused about what kind of protection (or 'amanah' in Arabic) this verse is referring to, how long it's supposed to last, and most importantly, if it can save a polytheist from death if he refuses to convert to Islam. I'ld really appreciate a detailed tafsir using references from the Prophet SAW, Sahabah, and senior tabi'in. Jazak Allah! Edit: I also checked the tafsir of Imam Ibn Abi Hatim RH. There, [he narrated from Mujhaid bin Jabr RH](https://shamela.ws/book/8658/1746#p1) that, "transfer him to his place of safety" means to return him to wherever he came from. However, I'm even more confused now, as I'm wondering if this means that muslims can immediately kill him once he's been returned to his place of origin as the amnesty is now over!

Most people belonging to a faith will do whatever it takes to raise their child to see only their hereditary faith as orthodox (righteous one) and all others as unorthodox. If a person was only manipulated by his/her parents to declare their belonging to the Islamic faith at a tender age at which they were unfit to resist the pressures of cultivation but later, once they maybe reach their teens, they start thinking freely and come to terms that their association with the religion in the past was never genuinely theirs (as opposed to some people who do convert of their own volition), is their act considered apostasy and, as such, subject to the sanctions of leaving Islam?

I'm currently researching Shari\`a laws, and this query is related. ʿUbaydallāh bin Jaḥsh parted from Islam and adopted Christianity and died a natural death. Yet, under Shari\`a law, leaving Islam constitutes a capital offense. As an example _Reliance of the Traveller_ states: []] But then why wasn't ʿUbaydallāh bin Jaḥsh punished? Or why isn't Shari\`a law different because of the precedent set by this incident? Any help is much appreciated. Thank you!

Scholars state that an apostate is defined as one who has left Islam and adopted a different religion, and that such a person is to executed, even if he does not fight against the Muslims. I have a question about how this law on apostasy is reconciled with the following ahadith: > لا يحل دم امرئ مسلم يشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمدا رسول الله إلا بإحدى ثلاث رجل زنى بعد إحصان فإنه يرجم ورجل خرج محاربا لله ورسوله فإنه يقتل أو يصلب أو ينفى من الأرض أو يقتل نفسا فيقتل بها > > “The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) Said: The blood of a Muslim man who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle should not lawfully be shed except only for one of three reasons: a man who committed fornication after marriage, in which case he should be stoned; **one who goes forth to fight with Allah and His Apostle**, in which case he should be killed or crucified or exiled from the land; or one who commits murder for which he is killed.” > > [Sunan Abi Dawud 4353. Grade: Sahih Al-Albani](https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4353) > لا يحل دم امرئ مسلم إلا بإحدى ثلاث خصال زان محصن يرجم أو رجل قتل رجلا متعمدا فيقتل أو رجل يخرج من الإسلام يحارب الله عز وجل ورسوله فيقتل أو يصلب أو ينفى من الأرض > > The Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: "It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim except in three cases: An adulterer who had been married, who should be stoned to death; a man who killed another man intentionally, who should be killed; and **a man who left Islam and waged war against Allah, the Might and Sublime, and His Messenger**, who should be killed, or crucified, or banished from the land." > > [Sunan an-Nasa'i 4048. Grade: Sahih Darussalam](https://sunnah.com/nasai:4048) Specifically I would like the following points to be addressed: - The first hadith states that there are only 3 reasons for which a Muslim can be killed, it does not mention apostasy rather it only mentions adultery, murder and one who "fights with Allah and His Apostle". The third one might be understood to mean one who fights against the Muslims. So how can it be considered permissible to execute apostates who abstain from fighting, since they are not among the three exceptions? - The second hadith mentions leaving Islam but pairs it with "waging war against Allah and His Messenger" so it might be argued that a person can only be killed if he leaves Islam *and also* fights against Muslims. - The ahadith also mentions that one who fights against Allah and His Apostle can be exiled or banished instead of being executed. But an apostate is not exiled according to Shariah law, rather he must be executed. - It could be that apostasy was understood back then to mean military treason, or that leaving Islam or changing one's religion was considered synonymous with fighting against the Muslims. My question is: **How do those who believe that any apostasy is punishable by death reconcile their belief with the above ahadith?**

If a vigilante kills an apostate, would the vigilante face the death sentence?

My question is straightforward, If Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh "Genuinly" had a serious doubt that caused him leaving Islam (i.e he wasn't a hypocrite but a true believer) Then how can we justify that his generous and unbiased conclusion which made him leave Islam, still to be called apostasy and treason. We know that he was a scriber of Quran then the incident occured that he was allowed to add some words into quranic ayats by the permission of prophet Muhammad (saw) himself, isn't it a real and thought provoking on itself to doubt Islam and the prophet, I would be realistic and honest if were in place of abdullah ibn sar I would have done the same thing. If you come with the answer that because the allowance of wording in Quran didn't really had that much siginficance in the meaning because at the end of the day it should reflect according to whole notion of Quran and doesn't contridict the quran, then I would ask isn't the Quran already the part of ( Al- kitaab) and its written and recorded along with other ( suhoof and previous scriptures) in "Lawhe Mahfooz", so hence, it must not have any other human's aditional wordings and additions to begin with.

I was asked this by an Apostate. He wanted to know what the evidence is that an Apostate can evade execution by repenting and returning to Islam. I know this is the judgement of the madhahib and Umar ra did this with the Iraqi apostates but this did not satisfy him. Is there any evidence from Quran or Sunnah that the apostate is permitted to return to Islam and thus avoid execution? Verses about Allah being all merciful are important but in this case I am not sure if they are evidence the Apostate should be able to evade execution, perhaps it would mean Allah has forgiven the Apostate on the basis of his execution being the expiation, so his Repentance would help him from the punishment of the Afterlife but not from the legal penalty, just as a thief cannot escape the penalty for theft by repenting. On the other hand, it could also be argued that the victim of theft can waive the penalty for the thief, and Apostasy which is a crime against Allah can also be waived by Allah. Because of this uncertainty, I would prefer it if the answers did not invoke Allah’s mercy as the proof an Apostate can escape his penalty by repentance unless they can prove these verses can be applied to waiving the apostasy penalty.

Qur'an 5:5 permits Muslim men to marry chaste women of the book. However, according to IslamWeb, there is an exception: a Muslim man may not marry a woman who is an ex-Muslim (a.k.a., an apostate). They quote: > Ibn Qudaamah said: “It is prohibited to marry an apostate woman, no matter what religion she adopts; because it is not proved for her the ruling of the people of the religion to which she converted by one's approval of her doing so. Based on this, it is not lawful for him to marry her with greater reason.” [Al-Mughni 7/131] > IslamWeb The English in this translation is not clear, so I'm not sure what "it is not proved for her the ruling of the people of the religion to which she converted by one's approval of her doing so" actually means. This leads me to my question: **Question**: What evidence is there that a Muslim man can not marry a chaste woman of the book if she is an ex-Muslim? I think IslamWeb refers to Ibn Qudamah on Wikipedia, who was around hundreds of years after the Prophet. If this is correct, what IslamWeb presents is just one scholar's opinion. However, it's possible this scholar had other justifications for making this ruling.

> Ma’mar reported: Some residents of the peninsula told me that some > people had embraced Islam, but it was not long until they became > apostates. Maymun ibn Mihran wrote to Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz, may Allah > have mercy on him, regarding them and Umar wrote back saying, “Let > them return to paying tribute and leave them alone.” > > Source: Muṣannaf ‘Abd al-Razzāq 18102 > > عَنْ مَعْمَرٍ قَالَ أَخْبَرَنِي قَوْمٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْجَزِيرَةِ أَنَّ > قَوْمًا أَسْلَمُوا ثُمَّ لَمْ يَمْكُثُوا إِلا قَلِيلا حَتَّى > ارْتَدُّوا فَكَتَبَ فِيهِمْ مَيْمُونُ بْنُ مِهْرَانَ إِلَى عُمَرَ بْنِ > عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ رحمه الله فَكَتَبَ إِلَيْهِ عُمَرُ أَنْ رُدَّ > عَلَيْهِمُ الْجِزْيَةَ وَدَعْهُمْ Muṣannaf ‘Abd al-Razzāq 18102 So why did Umar ibn Abdul Aziz let them Pay Jizya? Did he just want money or didn’t believe the punishment for apostasy was death?

I believe the question is enough. Also, is conversion between schools considered apostasy? (I suppose conversion to denominations not universally accepted as Islam could be considered apostasy, such as Ahmadiyya .)

The punishment for apostasy in Islam is execution. The Western world mocks Islam for this. They say that they are more peaceful as they don't interfere with someone's personal life, blah blah blah. How should a Muslim reply to the accusation/mockery/criticism against Islam to shut them up?

I had apostated a while ago because I was ignorant on matters of islam in terms of actual proof that is comes from Allah, so I searched the internet a lot to find proof, and after a long time I cam across hamza tzortis videos and relearned about something called Isnad, and then saw it as strong proof to believe, so now I want to convert back to islam and become muslim, but there are some problems that prevented me form believing even through these proofs. An ignorant female,meanings not qualified to talk about islam the way she does, said that the quran has errors and contradictions, so I told them a very simple thing which is you cant use a seemingly contradictory verse as evidence against islam if you realize that there is a need to interpret verses, very simple. But she just said "or admit its flawed" and I said fro what, if interpretation is necessary then why immediately call the quran flawed and then insult it due to your opinion, she even admitted herself that 'you don't need a scholar to understand islam, you can form your own opinion" why are you insulting islam based off of opinion instead of a verifiable fact? But my problem is in wondering how scholars interpret verses,do they interpret it apologetically, to make sure that it is interpreted in a way that makes it seem free of error or contradiction, o is there an objective way, to interpret the verses, this is what caused me doubt. The quran shows that verses aren't to be interpreted based off of your desires, meaning that there is an objective way to interpret it, but does that apply to all verses , as the quran says some verses meanings are known only to Allah. For example, the female brought up the food of hell as a contradiction, first it said they only eat foul pus, and then it says they only eat dhari and then only zaqqum. Dhari is part of zaqqum, so does that mean that foul pus comes from dhari? SO the question is this: is the quran cleared of contradictions with biased or unbiased interpretations? Now I understand that there will of course be some apologetic interpreters, but the question I have is is purposefully apologetically interpreting verses common amongst most interpreters? Interpreting apologetically can mean things like making sure it aligns with science as well.

Think of a situation where a Muslim undergoes a baptism in a church in order to make Christians think that he's converting to Christianity (maybe he's doing some undercover work). But in reality, he is still a Muslim. Would that be shirk? Would that make him an apostate? I read that from the Islamic perspective, a baptism will have no effect on your faith. You still remain a Muslim. So I don't expect a baptism to be shirk if the intention is to make Christians think he is converting to Christianity.

There is a narration where a sahabi was given a list of the hypocrites of Madina, so the prophet (pbuh) knew of them but didn't do anything to them. Why did he do this if the punishment of apostasy is death?

The topic of death penalty for apostasy (defection form one's religion) in Islam seems to be a controversial one since many people have both positive and negative answers regarding the issue. Now, since Quran is the only source of guidance for all Muslims regardless of opinions or sects etc I wanted to know how the Quran tackles this issue if it tackles it at all. I know about the Sahih Hadith in which the Prophet of Islam clearly prescribes death for apostasy but it seems Muslims have mixed responses to it, one of them being it a "dhaeef" or weak Hadith. > **Bukhari[52:260]** "...The Prophet said, 'If somebody **(a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.**' " The only verse from the Quran I've been able to find (allegedly) regarding apostasy is the following: > **Quran[4:89]** "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, > and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends > of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, **if they turn > their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them**; take not > to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper." I haven't studied the Tafseer of this verse so please forgive my nuisance. So does anyone know whether the Quran really does prescribe the death penalty like the above mentioned Hadith? If there is then the other part of my question is the following: If I was brought up as Muslim, meaning that since my childhood being a Muslim wasn't really my choice and it can be argued that it was my parents who "forced" me to be Muslim, wouldn't it be wrong to forbid me from exercising my freedom of consciousness and freedom of thoughts? The classic argument from Muslims supporting the penalty is of "treason". It is true that being a traitor to my country can bear severe consequences, possibly death or life sentence. But this is a weak argument and it can be argued that religion and country are two different things. I can never change the fact that I was born in a certain country but I **can** change my beliefs which I **wasn't born with** at all. Quran says that there is no compulsion regarding the practice of religion. > **Quran[2:256]** "There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the > religion." So bottomline, what does the Quran really have to say about this issue? References of Ahadith are not welcome because no matter how authentic, they are still hearsay sayings of the prophet and prone to exaggerations or manipulations. Quran is the only source of authentic Islamic teachings. Thank you.. **Edit:** Another argument from Muslims is that everyone in the world is born a Muslim but their parents mislead them towards other religions. Thus death penalty for apostasy is justified. This argument is a foolish one, has absolutely no logical or natural basis and impossible to be true.

I was a Christian and I became Muslim. I got married to a Muslim girl. If I return to my religion (Christian), is my marriage still valid?

In this translation of a hadith attached to Imam Malik’s commentary: > "if someone changes his deen, strike his neck!" refers to those who leave Islam for other than it - like the heretics and their like, about whom it is known. They are killed without being called to tawba because their tawba is not recognised. They were hiding their kufr and publishing their Islam, so I do not think that one calls such people to tawba, and one does not accept their word. As for the one who goes out of Islam to something else and divulges it, one calls him to tawba. If he does not turn in tawba, he is killed ** [Translation of the Muwatta Malik Book 36 Hadith 15 ]** I am having trouble understanding what is meant by > like the heretics and their like, about whom it is known. Please explain to me in other words, what kind of Apostate Imam Malik is referring to when he says >their tawba is not recognised

Is the apostate's repentance accepted, because in 3:90 it is said that it will never be accepted? > Indeed, those who disbelieve after having believed then increase in > disbelief, their repentance will **never** be accepted. It is they who are > astray.3:90 And the verse 3:86 is connected with 3:90: > How will Allah guide a people who chose to disbelieve after they had > believed, acknowledged the Messenger to be true, and received clear > proofs? For Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.3:86 How can this verse be correlated with 3:89, because if Allah does not guide the apostates, then how can they repent? And if their repentance is accepted (as stated in 3:89), then why does 3:90 say? > As for those who repent afterwards and mend their ways, then surely > Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.3:89 How to link these three verses 3:86, 3:89, 3:90?