The Traditional Punishment for Apostasy in Islam

according to well-known hadith, or accounts of what Muhammad said, is death.

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 person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.” See al-Bukhari, 9:83:17.

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 said, ‘Don’t punish (anybody) with Allah’s Punishment.’ No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’” See al-Bukhari, 4:52:260. See also al-Dawood, 40:4351.

I say “well-known” because the hadith are from al-Bukhari, which is one of six books known in Sunni Islam as “The Authentic Six.” These books form the foundation of Sunni Islam and are touted by Sunni Muslims as authoritative. Of course, not all Muslims endorse or even know about the six books. For example, Shia Muslims tend to rely on different books. They have their own books of hadith which they regard as authoritative instead. The point is that, for Sunni Muslims, who rely on the six books for any number of hadith, it is troubling indeed that in one of the most oft-cited, al-Bukhari, there are clear hadith in which the prophet called for the death of people who left Islam for whatever reason.

This does not mean that the hadith are true–that is, that the prophet in fact called for the death of people like me. Obviously any one hadith may be weak, or unreliable. But because the hadith in question are from al-Bukhari, it is unclear on what basis a Sunni Muslim can object to it, at least at first glance. According to Sunni thought, the fact that a hadith is in al-Bukhari is a prima facie reason for a Sunni Muslim to believe it is accurate. Otherwise, al-Bukhari cannot be said to be authentic as a whole after all. The (Sunni) Muslim would have to concede that al-Bukhari is not a reliable source of hadith. Therefore, we can no longer assume that other hadith that have nothing to do with leaving Islam but are also in al-Bukhari are authentic. We would have to examine each individual hadith in al-Bukhari on its own, which defeats the whole point of designating a hadith or book of hadith as authoritative.

Moreover, the hadith in question–the ones, again, in al-Bukhari, which call for death for people who leave the fold–also appear in several other collections. For example, the first hadith also appears in the book of Muslim, another one of the Authentic Six. See Muslim, 16:4152 and 16:4154. In other words, it is not just al-Bukhari in which the prophet says that apostates should be killed. There are other books out there that contain the same hadith. This suggests that the hadith is truly reliable. Not only do we have independent support for the same hadith, but we know that, according to the hadith sciences, or the rules that Muslims used a millenia ago to categorize and evaluate hadith, the fact that the same hadith can be traced to independent sources, means it is reliable. So if multiple people attest that the prophet called for the death of apostates, then, at least according to traditional Islamic thought, the hadith is authoritative.

I should also mention that there are in fact very few hadith that appear in multiple collections. In other words, there are only so many hadith out there that can be traced to many different sources. So the fact that the same hadith appears in multiple collections shows that not only are they authoritative, but that they are more authoritative than most other hadith. It is actually rather rare for a hadith to enjoy so much support. The hadith sciences, as any Islamic scholar can tell you, are complex and elaborate. Muslims had to sift through thousands of accounts in the early centuries of Islam to identify the most authoritative ones. Many were left out or discarded because they were deemed too weak and were lost. Many were designated as weak, but were retained in other hadith collections. Remember, the six are a special category of hadith. Not all hadith were included in them and many collections exist besides.

Finally, we know that the sahaba, who were Muslims who adopted Islam at the time and were the prophet’s contemporaries–and in many cases, his closest friends and confidants–subsequently carried out the punishment of death against apostates. For example, in the second hadith above, also in al-Bukhari, it is said that Ali–the prophet’s cousin who subsequently became the fourth and last “rightly guided caliph,” or rashidun, according to Sunni Muslims–burned people to death because they had left Islam. Ibn Abbas, who was the prophet’s uncle, is reported to have said that he objected to the fact that Ali had burned them to death, but not because death was not the appropriate punishment. Ibn Abbas disagreed only with the means, because he was of the view that fire was “God’s punishment,” according to the prophet, and that, therefore, Ali had made a mistake. But Ibn Abbas made sure to clarify that he too would have put to death the apostates in question–just in a different way. So we have accounts not only of the prophet ordering his followers to kill apostates, but his followers listening.

The standard counterargument is that the hadith in question have nothing to do with apostates, and have everything to do with people who subsequently fought against Muslims, or allied themselves with their enemies. In other words, the prophet did not order that apostates be put to death per se, but only if they turned on the Muslims or took up arms against them. Thus, when the prophet said, people who leave the fold, or, apostates, he did not mean people who left Islam silently. The counterargument is based on large part on the fact that there exists a variation of the hadith in question in yet another book out of the Authentic Six, al-Dawood, in which Ayesha, one of the prophet’s wives, apparently relates that

Allah’s Apostle 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 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.” See Dawud, 39:4339.

Muslims argue that therefore the prophet must have meant that traitors–people who turned on the prophet–were singled out for punishment, not apostates as such. This argument is untenable for a few reasons. One is that the prophet did not say, only kill apostates if they turn on you. He said, kill apostates. If he meant the former, presumably he would have said so, especially because there were probably many people who left Islam because they were no longer convinced that it was true or good, but never turned on the Muslims. This is so even if, as Muslims have alleged, it is unthinkable that anyone who did turn on the Muslims and take up arms against them at the time did so without renouncing Islam.

Moreover, it is conceivable that there were Muslims who never formally renounced Islam, but still allied themselves with the prophet’s enemies. In fact, the Qur’an spills much ink condemning what it calls munafiqun, or “hypocrites,” who concealed their true allegiances from the prophet, all the while plotting against him. Because they too rebelled against God and turned on his messenger, the same punishment should apply. But the prophet did not order that the munafiqun be put to death. He expressly reserved the punishment of death for apostates, despite the fact that the munafiqun were arguably an even greater threat to the Muslims at the time precisely because of their duplicity.

It is also not clear what hadith are idiosyncratic, and intended to apply only to the prophet’s circumstances at the time, and what hadith are universal, and intended to apply at all times. So it is not clear, just given the language of the hadith in question, whether it was intended to apply only to people who left Islam at the time, or to people who left Islam at any time in the future. We know that the prophet was convinced that Islam would last a long time, so context was crucial. Even if the only Muslims who left Islam at the time subsequently took up arms against them, it does not mean that, 1400 years later, I would do the same thing. I “left” Islam a long time ago, and yet I have yet to take up arms against anybody.

In addition, the prophet should have known that, even if he did not say so, apostates would be treated with disdain and contempt going forward. Given how tight-knit and tribalistic the Muslims were at the time, and the fact that they were persecuted and at war with their enemies, surely he would have known that anyone who even appeared to leave the fold or defect in any way would be subject to incredible hostility and violence. And yet at no point did he order that people who had lost faith or become disenchanted with Islam be left to their own devices. The onus was on the prophet to protect people that he knew would be persecuted–just like Muslims themselves had been persecuted from the very beginning. But he took no such precautions. So either the prophet intended for apostates to be put to death, precisely because they were apostates, or he was rather careless and cavalier about their fate.

Remember, the sahaba were convinced that the appropriate punishment was death–that in fact, there was a punishment at all. And there is no indication in the hadith mentioned earlier that the people that Ali had burned to death had taken up arms again the Muslims, or turned on them. Ibn Abbas, in fact, confirms that he too would have killed them, precisely because he believed that the prophet had ordered that apostates be put to death. So if it is clear that the prophet only ordered that traitors, basically, be put to death, why did the sahaba single out apostates as such? Both in light of what they did, and what they said? Should we not defer to the sahaba as to what the right interpretation of the relevant hadith is? They knew the prophet better than we did, so to the extent to which they had thoughts as to what the prophet meant, we should listen to them, rather than supplant their judgment with our own 1400 years later.

Even if the relevant hadith are subject to two different interpretations, it is not unreasonable for a lay person, in the year 2018, to read them and conclude that the prophet ordered that apostates be put to death. In other words, it is not enough to propose an alternate interpretation of the hadith in question that is more palatable and less offensive. Reasonable minds can disagree, and to the extent to which the hadith is unclear, it is amenable to two different interpretations. Contemporary Muslims would have to argue that the traditional interpretation–that apostates should be put to death, according to the prophet–is not reasonable in the first place, not that there is another interpretation out there that is also reasonable. And that is impossible. Remember, the argument is that by “apostates” the prophet meant “traitors”–not that he did not say “apostates.”

This goes to a broader, theological problem with the hadith in general, and, in fact, the Qur’an: to the extent to which there are erroneous interpretations out there, it is God’s fault that people are deterred from Islam. It is his job to ensure that it is reasonable for a person to accept Islam, by, for example, making sure the Qur’an is clear and easy to read. And we know that the Qur’an goes to lengths to show just how perspicuous it really is. Muslims also like to say that Islam has no hierarchical structure and does not require a formal clergy because the Qur’an is easily accessible to even the lay person. But the whole thing is rendered suspect if there are are a multiplicity of alternate interpretations that are also reasonable. In other words, the word of God cannot be “clear” if there are competing interpretations that are just as good. The fact that they are wrong is irrelevant. We would blame God if the Qur’an were confusing and hard to read, and, as a result, a lay person rejected Islam.

Likewise, we should blame God for not ensuring that the hadith were clearer. At the very least, God should have ensured that it was not a reasonable interpretation of the hadith that apostates should be put to death. And God could have accomplished this in any number of ways. For example, God could have ensured that the relevant hadith were lost in history. That way contemporary believers would not have to struggle with it. He could have ensured that the hadith were unreliable, or weak, such that we would reject them were they to survive the passage of time. In fact, God could have ensured that Ali, or Ibn Abbas, had forgotten that the prophet ordered that apostates be put to death. Or, God could have just told Muhammad not to kill apostates, or even added a verse in the Qur’an expressly forbidding it. It is not as if the Qur’an had a word limit. What is the verse? Even as an atheist, I can acknowledge its beauty: “[a]nd if all the trees on earth were pens and the ocean (were ink), with seven oceans behind it to add to it, yet would not the words of God be exhausted: for God is Exalted in Power, full of Wisdom.”

There are a few other counterarguments out there I have heard over the years, one of which I will dispose of quickly. One is recourse to the Qur’an, which says, in a famous verse, that there must be no coercion in religion. See 2:256. This is irrelevant. The point is that we have independent evidence that the prophet said that apostates should be put to death, and it matters what the prophet said, because we are told to do what he says. In fact, even the Qur’an says that we should do what the prophet says. Not only is the prophet the preeminent authority on the Qur’an, there are many things the Qur’an says in vague terms that we rely on the prophet to clarify. So it is a problem that the prophet said that apostates should be put to death, no matter what the Qur’an says. Of course, the fact that the Qur’an seemingly says X, but the prophet says Y, is a reason to believe that either the Qur’an does not say X, or the prophet does not say Y. But, like I said, we have independent evidence that the prophet instructed us to put people who leave the faith to death. We cannot pretend as if it does not exist, just because it conflicts with our contemporary understanding of what the Qur’an says–or what we want it to say. For example, I doubt the sahaba thought the prophet’s instruction were at odds with verse 2:256, even if we do.

And of course, to the extent that Islam commands absolute allegiance, and God does not tolerate even the slightest doubt in its truth, lest we pollute our faith with uncertainty, we are under no obligation to accept Islam. Obviously, we should err on the side of caution, and not inadvertently accept a code that says that we should kill people who change their mind about it. Imagine being asked to join a club, because it is all fun and games, but if you change your mind later on and want out, you will be killed by the concerted efforts of its members. I assume that most everyone would decline such an the offer. Likewise, if there is any doubt that the prophet in fact instructed us to kill defectors in our midst, we should not take the risk. Remember, with Islam we are Muslims, but without it, we are merely non-Muslims. And as someone who once both believed and practiced fervently, I can tell you that the alternative is not half bad.