Extinguishing the Fire of an Already Illusionary Camp.

Majid in an adversarial tone has asked that I “....address the issues with more rigour and be not so adversarial...” . I hope now to just do that and deal with his final point

“My point, however, was not contingent upon this quote, but on the fact that there is a scholarly difference on the matter of apostasy. That this is reported is a fact. It has been narrated by ibn Hazm and is clear for all to see in his book "al-Muhalla".”

As his issue is one of scholars I will not address the evidences for and against the camp (a lot already has been written on this). My concerns are the views of the classical theorists and the revisionist understanding of them

Ibrahim Nakhh’ie and Sufyaan Al Thawri

Imam Nawawi narrates from Ibrahim Al-Nakhh’ie the following view “...and Imam Thawri said that the apostate is asked to repent indefinitely and he will be imprisoned until he repents or dies”. Ibn Habban also narrates “..Al-Nakhie and Al Thawri have gone towards the view that he ( the apostate) is asked to repent while in prison indefinitely. (Ibn Habban al Bahr al Muhiet Chapter 2/ 34, Nawawi Takmilaat al Majmuu 19/237)

Others have interpreted the views of the two illustrious scholars differently. They go and say that the phrase “the person is asked to repent indefinitely” means that there is no limit to the number of times an apostate can repent i.e. with multiple infractions of apostasy. (Al’Abadi Aun al abudd bi Sharh Sunan Abi Dawood 9/38)

Yet other scholars hold onto the other narrations . Ibn Abd Al Bar says “..and the scholars differed on the female apostate as well, Imam Malik, Al-Awza3yi, Uthman al Bitiee, al Shafi,, and Layth bin Said have said that the apostate (regardless of their sex) is executed and this is the view of Ibrahim Al Nakhiee. Their evidence is the apparent generality of the hadiths that do not qualify any gender” (Al-Tamhid 312/5)

Ibn Hajr also insists more importantly

“ and it has been narrated by Sai’d Bin Mansur on the authority of ( a’n) Hashiem on the authority of Abaida Bin Mugheth on the authority of Ibrahim that he said “ If a male or female apostatise from Islam they are asked to repent and if they refuse they are to be killed. “ Ibn Hajr goes on to say that this narration is authentic whereas the narration of Ibrahim that waivers the capital punishment is in fact weak. (Fath al Bari 268/12)

There is no narration from Sufyan as far as I know which waivers the capital prescription.

So therefore we are left with a number of conclusions

1-We have authentic narrations from these two scholars that prescribe a capital punishment

2-We have authentic narrations (as far as I know) that say they have an indefinite number of chances to repent.

3-We have a weak narration from Ibrahim that waivers the capital offence in favour of an indefinite time in prison

4-Nawawi along with Ibn Hazm have not taken all the narrations into consideration and therefore have not understood this position as exhaustively as possible. This does happen even with the greatest of scholars. For example Imam Nawawi held the view that Imam Malik did not forbid Donkey meat. They still held onto an indefinite prison term which may not be palpable for the likes of modernists like Majid and co. (who knows?)

The best conclusion and most sincere one in light of the evidence would be an amalgamation of the texts. They see that the capital punishment is available for those who refuse to repent.

For the sake of argument let’s say that the narration of Ibrahim is authentic. We now have two mutually contradictory opinions with no possible way to reconcile. In this case it would be better to say that the position is not clear. We cannot say either way what is the position of these scholars without some ad hoc fallacy.

The proposed evidence of the illusionary party

“As for he who says his repentance is permanently sought without recourse to killing him:This is due to the narration of...Anas ibn Malik who said that Abu Musa al-Ash'ari killed Juhayna The Liar and his companions. Anas then said, “So I approached Umar ibn al-Khattab who said, 'what did Juhayna and his companions do?'”....so I said, “Amir al-Mu'minin, was there a way other than killing them?, Umar said, 'If I came across them I would have offered them Islam, and if they didn't repent I would have imprisoned them.'” and (due to what) ...Ibn Thawr said to Umar, “there was a man who apostatised so we killed him”. Umar said, “Woe be to you, if only you had left an opening for him, fed him every day with some bread and provided him with a cup of water for three days, then if only you had asked him to accept Islam on the third, for perhaps he could have returned. O Allah I wasn't present, I didn't order it and I didn't know”....
Ibn Hazm Ibn Hazm, al-Muhalla, [Maktabat al-Turath] issue: 2195 'The Rule Regarding Apostates', vol. 11, p. 243

A few important points before I go onto the narration that is mentioned. Ibn Hazm mentions a camp and this obviously refers to the two illustrious scholars. If it does not then we are left with an anonymous group of scholars. This is a problem for anyone who cries out difference of opinion. Surely we must know who these scholars are. Don’t you think so Majid or does your infatuation with “dhann” even take it to this extreme?

Ok now onto the narration. Did Umar hold onto the position quoted? In fact Umar held onto the same position as the consensus. The apostate is to be killed. He does give them three days though. We know this because of other authentic narrations from the caliph.

First there is an important addition to this narration “if he repents then you have accepted it from him and if he refuses then you have removed any possible excuse he may have” (this phrase could do with a better translation but the meaning is correct) i.e. an excuse to avoid the death penalty (Tamhid 5/307).

In other narrations Umar was more explicit In the Musnaaf of Ibn Abi Sheyba (562/5) Umar held the view that if the person after three days still refuses then he or she is to be killed. There is also another narration which confirms this. Umar in response to a letter by Amr ibn Al A’s about apostates was even more graphic “then strike his neck”. That is why Ibn abdul Bar says that Umar held onto the view that the person is to be kept in prison for three days before the capital punishment is applied. (Al ‘Isthithkaar 154/7)

In Conclusion

1-Ibn hazm’s camp was probably the two sheikhs noted and that has already been discussed

2-If we have an anonymous group then we cannot use that to put forward a difference of opinion

3-The evidence for this group is a misunderstanding of the view of Umar

4-Those who upheld this proof probably really thought that this was a proof for the “indefinite chance to repent” i.e. without a time period.

I think I have now sufficiently refuted what Majid has put forward i.e.

“My point, however, was not contingent upon this quote, but on the fact that there is a scholarly difference on the matter of apostasy. That this is reported is a fact. It has been narrated by ibn Hazm and is clear for all to see in his book "al-Muhalla".”

The scholarly difference is certainly not a fact, surely not clear and not really helped when reading Ibn Hazm’s “al-Muhalla”.

All that is good is from Allah and any mistake is on my part, and I more than happy to be corrected on mistakes that I have made.

Most of this comes from this article which is very good.

http://saaid.net/Doat/ahdal/115.htm