2

A Christian asked me that why Islam says to execute one who changes his religion. He gave a hadith as reference.

The hadith :

Narrated Ikrima: Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn `Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet (ﷺ) said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet (ﷺ) said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، عَنْ أَيُّوبَ، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، أَنَّ عَلِيًّا ـ رضى الله عنه ـ حَرَّقَ قَوْمًا، فَبَلَغَ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ فَقَالَ لَوْ كُنْتُ أَنَا لَمْ أُحَرِّقْهُمْ، لأَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏"‏ لاَ تُعَذِّبُوا بِعَذَابِ اللَّهِ ‏"‏‏.‏ وَلَقَتَلْتُهُمْ كَمَا قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏"‏ مَنْ بَدَّلَ دِينَهُ فَاقْتُلُوهُ ‏"‏‏.‏

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 3017
In-book reference : Book 56, Hadith 226
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 4, Book 52, Hadith 260

So what should be my reply ? What is the explanation and the context of the hadith? What is the logical answer?

We know that in Islam, punishment behind other crimes such as fornication, orders to kill mushrik in Quran etc. has a background, context and logic. So what is the logic, background and context behind this ?

It will be helpful if anyone answer.

Community
  • 1
Rafid Abrar
  • 159
  • 1
  • 12

1 Answers1

3

Muhammad ﷺ said that because it is the legal punishment for apostasy that Allah has prescribed. There isn't any special context on which it is dependent, rather it is a common ruling also present in several other ahadith, see my answer here.

Its purpose is similar to that of other Hudud like those for fornication, drinking wine, murder, robbery, theft, adultery, slander etc. These punishments are prescribed for transgressions against Allah or the people or both and among their purpose is to protect the people from harm and to achieve the goals of shariah. Apostasy is a grave one among them as it is Kufr of a Muslim, being worse than original Kufr; and it may lead to misguidance of others.

Regarding how to reply to the Christian, one approach might be to explain that the punishment is the same in the Torah e.g. Deuteronomy 13:12-16 (see commentary) and Deuteronomy 13:6-10 (see commentary).

If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live ... have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” ... you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock.

— Deuteronomy 13:12-15

Christians believe the Torah to have been given by God \ Jesus, regardless of whether they consider themselves subject to the law. Whatever explanations and reasons they have for their own scripture, they can extend the same to Islam.

Community
  • 1
UmH
  • 28,329
  • 4
  • 40
  • 147
  • I don't think this addresses the question meaningfully because it sounds to me like the OP is asking for rationale, not legal source texts. – G. Bach Mar 23 '19 at 03:31
  • @G.Bach IMO the purpose of the question is to have a reply for the objection, and in the given context this is a strong and adequate response since whatever explanation they have for their own scripture they can apply the same to Islam. I don't see how Islamic rationale or values would be useful as a response. – UmH Mar 23 '19 at 06:20
  • 1
    The same explanation that Christians use to never apply that punishment does not apply to Islam, because according to Islamic doctrine the punishment is still in effect, while Christian doctrine holds differently about many laws from the Old Testament, this one included. The additions to your answer seem much more on point. – G. Bach Mar 23 '19 at 10:33
  • 1
    @G.Bach That is not an explanation, at most it is a distraction. Whether or not they apply the punishment or consider it abrogated, they agree that God legislated it at some point. – UmH Mar 23 '19 at 10:38
  • It's not a distraction because the impetus of this question has always been a moral objection whenever I've seen it asked; it seems far-fetched to think that it would be purely about legal construction. There's a large moral difference between believing killing apostates once was the law and may have been acceptable back then but that hasn't been the law in thousands of years while the status quo of religious freedom is morally and legally correct, and believing that killing apostates is currently morally and legally correct. – G. Bach Mar 23 '19 at 11:16
  • @G.Bach God does not command immorality in the first place, that it has been abrogated, suspended or abandoned etc. is irrelevant. Unless Christians believe that Deut 13 was immoral they have no real basis to make an objection to Islam on this point. – UmH Mar 23 '19 at 11:58
  • Answering a moral objection with "you really should be endorsing the same morality even if you find it objectionable" is not a response that promises any success. It's as if someone following a religion practicing sibling incest told Muslims "you guys should endorse this too because Adam and Eve's kids had incestuous relationships". How likely is that to have any moral impact on Muslims? What supposedly happened thousands of years ago is remote and can be historicized, what is current can't. – G. Bach Mar 23 '19 at 12:10
  • @G.Bach If the intent behind the objection is to proselytize then it is a successful response. The children of Adam analogy is problematic because it is not in the Quran nor Hadith, some have doubted its truthfulness, we don't know what its details were and it was not a command but rather a permission. This is a very different case from that of apostasy in the Torah as that is a command, the command is in the scripture and on the contrary the abrogation is not in the scripture at all and the Christians traditionally had similar laws in pre-modern times. – UmH Mar 23 '19 at 14:21
  • "If the intent behind the objection is to proselytize then it is a successful response." So is not responding at all and just ignoring the moral objection, which means the response is meaningless to the one making the objection. "You may think it's vile but I think it's fine" doesn't resolve anything, and on the contrary it tells the person making the objection that their objection is justified from their point of view. (This all apart from apologetics not being on topic for islam.se, I think) – G. Bach Mar 23 '19 at 15:19
  • "The children of Adam analogy is problematic [..]" Whether there's a command or a permission isn't relevant to whether or not it's considered moral to do by followers of the religion, only to whether they would considered it moral to not do it. As for how apt the analogy is, it's a logical necessity following from Adam and Eve being the progenitors of all mankind (which you seem to agree with). Other than that, take other examples like drinking alcohol or mut'ah. – G. Bach Mar 23 '19 at 15:20
  • It is relevant because being a command of a shariah implies a much greater degree of approval than a permission, especially in the case of apostasy, where there are no conditions attached, no indication of the action being undesirable or only being done because of a temporary necessity. On the other hand, if you take for example the case of wine, in the final verse on prohibition it is called abomination of the devil but the previous verses about it are all negative, it was permitted but has never been commanded. – UmH Mar 23 '19 at 16:32
  • The point is not that abrogations don't occur, it is that Allah's disposition doesn't change. The way it is commanded in the Torah leaves little room to argue that the action is inherently immoral, additionally the past christian practice on apostasy and heresy and some of their writings suggests that they might not consider this particular law abrogated but rather unenforceable. – UmH Mar 23 '19 at 16:33