What Basis Does the Execution of Apostates Have in Islamic Jurisprudence?

Is religiosity a personal or political matter? Why is there a punishment for a Muslim or a Muslim-born individual leaving Islam and converting to other religions or choosing atheism? What arguments in Islam support the issuance of apostasy verdicts and the execution of apostates? In this week's taboo, Sajjad Nikayin, a religious researcher, and Abdol-Fattah Khedmati, a Sunni religious scholar, discuss this topic. Mr. Khedmati, fundamentally, why is the issue of apostasy and leaving the faith raised in Islam, and how do you explain the contradiction of this matter with "there is no compulsion in religion" as stated in Islam? Abdol-Fattah Khedmati: Regarding your question, it should be said that "there is no compulsion in religion" is about inviting someone to Islam without force and coercion, but the verse on apostasy indicates that when someone becomes an apostate and turns away from the faith, it is detrimental to the religion and amounts to propaganda against Islam, which is why action is taken against that individual. Thus, there is no compulsion to accept Islam, but for someone who willingly accepted Islam and wants to turn away, if this return harms Islam, Islamic laws will take action against them. Mr. Khedmati, people also marry willingly, but they may one day want to separate and get divorced, leaving the contract they made. In your perspective, if a person signed a contract with God and believed in a religion called Islam, leaving it is fundamentally impossible. Khedmati: You mentioned the issue of divorce and marriage, which is between two individuals. However, here we are discussing a religion that is a heavenly law. If there is no propaganda, there is no problem, and no one will interfere. However, if someone wants to propagate their return from Islam, action will be taken against them. We should not have negative propaganda against another religion with our chosen ideas. This is where the issue of dealing with apostates does not initially involve killing or execution. This is why they are given a chance to think for three days or more to return from apostasy, and sometimes we see that those who claim to have become apostates, after discussions, we find out that this person was never a Muslim, has not read anything from the Quran, and has not learned anything about Islam. Very well, let’s see what Mr. Nikayin thinks about this. Sajjad Nikayin: The discussion is that the ruling on apostasy and essentially limits of this kind fall under a broader and more important category called laws and limits. The implementation of all these limits - assuming they are to be implemented, I am not advocating for their implementation - is contingent upon the establishment of an ideal city led by a leader who does not err, which according to Shia belief is infallible, or we consider the Prophet Muhammad and Amir al-Mu'minin Ali (peace be upon him) as the leaders of such a society. When the leadership of the community is not in the hands of such a person, these rulings cannot be applied and executed. The Islamic Republic has been in existence for 37 years. The history of Islam is 1400 years, and such limits and the killing of apostates - the limits of apostasy - have not occurred during the Islamic Republic. In the wars of apostasy, Abu Bakr immediately after the Prophet accused some of having become apostates, which ultimately gives rise to ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and a history that no Muslim can be proud of in the 1400-year history except during the time of the Prophet Muhammad and Amir al-Mu'minin. Mr. Nikayin, you raised a useful discussion about whether the ruling should be implemented or not. But one question is, why should the issue of leaving the faith and apostasy be raised in Islam that would warrant punishment? Nikayin: That is a valid question. 1400 years ago, abandoning belief and conviction was a political tool. It was practiced in all countries, in the two great empires of that time, the law of returning from religion and the official creed was enforced. Judaism and Christianity practiced it, and the infidels of Mecca and Medina enforced it, and their followers who lived in Mecca at that time and announced they wanted to convert to Islam were tortured and ultimately killed. The tortures of Ammar and his mother, Sumayyah, are all based on clear historical evidence. The important thing is that at that time this issue was accepted, and Islam, if it did not do this, would effectively disarm itself against the weapons of others. So you consider this a political issue. Nikayin: Yes, the nature of the matter was political, and apostasy was essentially regarded as a political act at that time. Let’s return to Mr. Khedmati. Mr. Khedmati, you may want to respond to Mr. Nikayin’s points. However, my question to you is, if leaving the faith and converting to another religion is considered apostasy and has a punishment in Islam, why does Islam welcome conversions to Islam and not only accepts them but also fights for others to join the faith? Khedmati: The war of Islam with non-Muslims was not initiated. If we return to the history of jihad in Islam - whether during the time of the Prophet or later - it was proposed, the invitation of Islam, and if accepted... and if not accepted, war would ensue, right Mr. Khedmati? There were many wars between Islam and other religions... Khedmati: Please allow me to complete my remarks. This proposal, if accepted, would mean they were brothers and sisters in faith, and if not accepted, a peace treaty should be signed between the parties in the context of conquests or whatever you call it war. If the opposite side did not accept to become Muslim and did not accept to sign a peace treaty, it meant they preferred war over peace. When this was the case, the recommendations of Islamic commanders, including the Prophet and others, were that when entering a war, several points should be observed; one, do not kill children, do not kill women, do not kill the elderly, do not cut down trees, do not destroy monasteries and places of worship... Mr. Khedmati, I apologize, our discussion is not about how to fight. Our discussion is that Islam has fought with believers of other religions to invite them to this faith, and this is an obvious fact throughout history, and I do not know how you can say such an event has not occurred. Khedmati: I believe your statements [are indicative of] a kind of imposition. If we return to the history of original Islam, it was never imposed. You previously recited the verse "there is no compulsion in religion" for us. We accepted that no one becomes a Muslim by force, but if someone leaves Islam and wants to propagate, action will be taken against them. If today an ambassador or diplomat from one of the countries separates and joins another country, or if someone wants to leave one of the security institutions and escapes, if caught, how will they be treated? They will certainly be executed and said to be traitors and guilty of treason against this country. So if someone wants to betray a great religion like Islam, how should they be dealt with? Mr. Nikayin, Mr. Khedmati compared the resignation of an ambassador from a country to leaving a religion and used the term betrayal to Islam. How does this contradict the freedom of thought and belief and choice of religion in today's world? Nikayin: Mr. Khedmati and friends like him who have a hand in the government, whether Shia or Sunni, have the problem that they see everything from a political perspective. Ultimately, with any justification, from the method of war to the fairness of presenting Islam to others - which are all debatable and all have been refuted - when the history of humanity looks at the chapter of Iran, none of the conditions that Mr. Khedmati mentions regarding the conquest of Iran were observed. According to the testimony of Tabari's history, Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas killed so many Iranians that the wheels of a mill in one city were turned. The manner of imposing that belief - that belief which was at the head of it and propagated by Umar - we do not consider it Islam. In any case, these events happened, and we cannot deny these events, but we can at least differentiate between the pre-modern period and the modern era and reconsider and admit that in that period, the conditions were specific to it, and in the current era, we cannot compare the issue with the resignation of an ambassador from a political contract, which is entirely diplomatic, and its return has its own specific regulations, and the discussion is not about killing and these matters. In the current era, there is neither the apostate in the literal sense nor the ideal Islamic city established, and the ruling on apostasy cannot be executed. Thus, the ambiguities and unanswered questions are so numerous that even if someone becomes an apostate, according to the views of Shia jurists... I have a question that has arisen for me. It does not seem that there is a disagreement among Shia and Sunni jurists on the issue of apostasy. Nikayin: In fact, there is a disagreement. Some jurists and Shia authorities consider the implementation of limits to be the prerogative of the infallible Imam. Other jurists condition the implementation of this limit and generally limits to the complete and comprehensive realization of Islam. Other jurists say that in the current era, there are so many ambiguities, questions, and doubts in beliefs that in this time, the title of apostate has no external application. There are other jurists who establish a rule that the purposes of Sharia and the most important goals of legislation and Islamic laws are the inclusion of God's mercy and grace towards all His servants. Therefore, there is a significant difference between Shia and Sunni. Let’s see what Mr. Khedmati wants to say. Khedmati: Among the Sunnis, it is very clear that whenever there is a doubt, the limit is not implemented, but because apostasy is very clear and evident, all Sunni jurists agree that the limit of apostasy or the punishment of an apostate is execution. By consensus, the rest believe that if it is due to harming Islam, the punishment is death, and they will be executed. What Mr. Nikayin mentioned about Islam coming to Iran by the sword, I refer him to Mr. Jamshid Choksy's book, which refutes this claim that Umar ibn al-Khattab was never a killer and that Islam did not come to Iran with such widespread bloodshed, but rather the Iranian people embraced Muslims due to the injustice of the Sassanids. However, what they mentioned about the implementation of limits among some Shia scholars until the absence of the infallible Imam should be said that it will never be implemented because we will never have an infallible Imam again, and especially from the perspective of Sunnis, if we wait for someone to come who is the Mahdi and the savior of humanity, he will never come. Therefore, in this case, we should wash our hands of implementing limits. This is not the case, and our infallible Imam is the Quran and is among us. The point you emphasized several times is that harming Islam by apostasy was the case. I want to know how this harm occurs? Does simply announcing that a person is no longer a Muslim and wants to become Christian inflict harm on Islam? Khedmati: The fact that someone announces their intention is what the goal is. If someone wants to become an apostate, let them do so in their own shell or any religion. You cannot take this right from them to express their belief and remain in their shell. Khedmati: A very simple example to clarify minds; two companies, Apple and Samsung, that steal from each other, sue each other. If such companies can sue each other, Islam has no right to defend itself against someone who propagates against it and prevents others from turning to Islam? The one who has become an apostate has not been a Muslim more than 99 percent. My question is not this. See, I repeat my question, Mr. Khedmati. My question is very clear. Today a Muslim announces that they are no longer a Muslim and from today they become Christian. Khedmati: I apologize, but did they announce when they became Muslim? Assume they did announce it then. Khedmati: That is propaganda and has a purpose... Nikayin: I want to say one point here. Yes, when a certain actor or actress converts from Christianity to Islam, Muslims themselves trumpet it, and they do not announce it themselves, it is natural. We must understand the logic of today's world; now they want to go out and want to announce it, just as they came in, they want to announce it. Khedmati: They did not announce when they came in, so when they want to go out, they should not announce it. Nikayin: Muslims themselves announced it. Khedmati: The announcement of this person and leaving Islam is against Islam. Islam allows itself to defend against propaganda against itself.