Concluded (Notes) : Immigration & Jihad, Part IV

Notes by the Arabic translator

1. When the maid opened the door, the sound of singing and clamour could be heard by the passers by.

2. Wasail’ush Shia, vol. 11, p. 124.

3. Nahjul Balagha. Imam Ali (a.s.) has an adage, serving the same theme, “It is not a winner whose sins catch up with him, and if the evil one overcame, he would eventually taste defeat.” Nahjul Balagha, Beirut new edition, Catalogued by Dr. Subhi as-Saleh, axiom No. 327, p. 533.

4. No doubt many champions, heroes, and ordinary people find in Imam Ali a role model, because, above all, he was fighting on two fronts – The external enemy and the enemy within, i.e. his tempting soul.

5. The reason why he earned that title is that he was in a caravan with other members of the tribe of Quraish. When the caravan reached the valley of Yelyel, near Badr, it was ambushed by a group of men of the tribe of Banu Bakr. Amr bin Abdi Wid asked his travelling companions to slip away. He single-handedly faced up to the attackers and defeated them. (at-Tabataba’ie, al-Mizan Qur’anic Commentary, Chapter 33, al-Ahzab vol. 16, p. 297).

6. The story we traced has been related by al-Majlisi in his Biharul Anwar, vol. 41, p. 51, Beirut new edition, that goes like this: When he gained the upper hand over Amr bin Abdi Wid, he did not deal him the final blow. The companions of the Prophet criticised Ali for not finishing him off. Huthaifa spoke in defence of Ali. The Prophet asked him to keep quiet, adding that Ali would put them in the picture as to why he paused before dealing his foe the last blow. When he finally killed bin Abdi Wid and went back to join the other combatants, the Prophet asked him about the delay in finishing his enemy off. Ali said that bin Abdi Wid called his mother names and spat in his face, and that had he killed him under the spur of the moment, it would have counted as though he killed him in revenge of his honour. Thus, he added, that he gave himself a respite to cool down in order that his killing him would be in the cause of God.

7. The story as it is told in Nahjul Balagha explains that this dialogue took place while the Imam was returning from Basrah after God granted him victory over the adversaries in the Battle of the Camel, and not after Siffeen, as the author had mentioned. (Nahjul Balagha, Beirut new edition, Catalogued by Dr. Subhi as-Saleh, vol. 1, p. 55).

8. “If they had intended to come out, they would certainly have made some preparation therefore; but God was averse to their being sent forth; so He made them lag behind, and they were told, "Sit ye among those who sit (inactive). If they had come out with you, they would not have added to your (strength) but only (made for) disorder, hurrying to and fro in your midst and sowing sedition among you, and there would have been some among you who would have listened to them. But God knoweth well those who do wrong.” (9/46-47).

This is in respect of the first group. As regards the second group, which the Imam made reference to, the Holy Qur’an describes them, thus:

“There is no blame on those who are infirm, or ill, or who find no resources to spend (on the cause), if they are sincere (in duty) to God and His Apostle: no ground (of complaint) can there be against such as do right: and God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. Nor (is there blame) on those who came to thee to be provided with mounts, and when thou said, "I can find no mounts for you," they turned back, their eyes streaming with tears of grief that they had no resources wherewith to provide the expenses.” (9/91-92).

In Sunan Ibn Majah, the Book of Jihad, vol. 2, p. 923, it has been related from the Prophet, after his return from expedition of Tabuk towards the approaches of Medina, “There are people in Medina, who, whatever distance you have covered, they would be with you.” They asked, “O Messenger of God! Even if they were in Medina?” He replied, “Yes, even if they were in Medina. They have a good reason for not being with us.”

9. Those words were Sa’ad bin Ma’ath’s in reply to a question put by the Prophet, who asked the opinion of the Ansar (Supporters, i.e. the people of Medina) about the proposition of taking on the army of the polytheists at the Battle of Badr. See Ibn Hisham’s Prophetic Biography, the Battle of Badr, in the closing pages of vol. 2 of the Beirut edition.

10. This is the text the author has quoted, however, what we found in the books of history is that Imam Husain (a.s.) gathered together his companions and members of his household on the eve of the tenth of Muharram and gave an oration, among whose contents were these words, “Now then, I am not aware of any companions more superior than my companions, neither a household that are more caring and loving than my family. May God reward you all on my behalf.”

11. The historiographers of battles assert that Sa’eed bin Abdullah al-Hanafi and a group of other combatants formed a circle around Imam Husain and his companions while they were saying their prayers. (Abdullah Shubbar’s Jala’ul Uyoon, the Chapter concerning His Arrival in Kerbala until His Martyrdom.)

12. It is worth noting that Sa’ad’s father was a companion of the Prophet. He was a consummate archer and had a good reputation among Arabs. He had a very good record in the battles of Islam and rendered noble services to Islam in this regard.

13. Abdullah Shubbar’s Jala’ul Uyoon, on which we relied heavily to cross-check the text relating to the Battle of Kerbala throughout the three lectures.

14. The type of moving around that is not commendable is that the person wanders aimlessly about just to be aloof from people, with the intention of retiring to remote areas and mountains for exclusive “worship”.

In Al-Hur al-Amili’s Wasa’il ush-Shia, vol, 11, p. 10, it has been reported that Othman bin Madh’oun approached the Prophet and expressed a wish to retire to the mountains. The Prophet said to him, “O Othman! Do not do it, the journeying of members of my ummah (community) is jihad. ”

Also, in Sheikh an-Nouri’s Mustadrakul Wasa’il, vol. 2, p.245 (lithograph) it is related that a man took to a mountain to retire for worship. His family brought him to the Messenger of God (s.a.w.), [complaining of his behaviour]. The Prophet discouraged him from so doing, and said, “If a believer shows resilience and perseverance in jihad for only one day, it is more meritorious for him than a forty-year worship”.

15. However, if we examine his statement from a spiritual perspective, we would find out that he was aspiring to shake off the yoke of materialism in order to roam in the noble world of spiritualism. In the metaphor, he likened the materialistic world to Alexander’s prison and the sublime spiritual life to the kingdom of Solomon.

16. He is one of the top Shia clerics who lived in Qom during the lifetime of Ayatollah as-Sayyid Husain al-Burujardi.

17. “Finds in the earth many a refuge, wide and spacious” means that the earth is vast, that is, it is not confined to the vicinity where the person lives. “Muragham”, which came in the context of the verse, means fine dust or sand. “Dipping one’s nose in the dust or the like” is a metaphor for the voluntary practice in prayer, as an expression of humility before God.

18. The power of the expression/argument in this verse lies in the fact that it dose not only set out to demolish the reasons “those who were deemed weak in the land” had put forward for going astray, i.e. the general decadence of society, but gives the alternative – the way out – to break free from the status quo. That is, commending the act of immigration in the cause of God, in that the immigrant’s reward would come from God; it also sets out the benefits arising from taking to immigration (hijra). That is, the immigrant would find in the land more space to observe one’s acts of worship.

19. The text is part of the letter Imam Ali (a.s.) sent to his governor of Basrah, Othman bin Hanif. (Vol. 4, p. 590, Darul Andulus, Beirut, annoted by Sheikh Mohammad Abdah). You may also look it up in Nahjul Balagha, Beirut new edition, Catalogued by Dr. Subhi as-Saleh, Letter No. 45.

20. Abdullah bin Ja’far, Zainab’s husband, had two sons who were martyred in the Battle of Kerbala. One was Awn, who was Zainab’s son and the second was by another wife.

21. Nahjul Balagha, Beirut new revised edition, catalogued by Dr. Subhi as-Saleh, Sermon No. 189.

Kindle: Of Faith, Depression and Love of Him and Family

In His Name, The All Merciful, the All Forgiving
The Wadud, The Jabbar

For those whose loved ones
Struggle with depression, and their faith Oscillates

In the stillness of the night
The cold night, with patchy clouds
As the time for rest approached
Lingering thoughts, prayer, petition

When the head embraced the pillow
In the darkness of the room
He cried out His name from the heart
Did He even exist, he asked him-self
But, for a moment, it did not matter

What mattered was the invocation
Was on behalf of his loved ones
He knew that they held Him high
He knew that they were cognizant of Him
He knew that they had oriented to Him
He knew that they had set on a path and a journey
He knew that His attributes of perfection were raining down on them

His tears oscillated between several states
On the in-adequacy of invoking through their behalf
How could you, he asked him-self
A question put to him-self evoked a painful response
His heart kindled with shame, with the verse from the Quran
‘Mankind has been created in the best of creation,
Yet at the same time stoops to the lowest’
Ahhhh, the recitation of Sura at-Tin, the fig leaf
The lowest of the low he was
There was no doubt, he had no doubts
At this stage he could only look and gaze up and above

Choking with emotions, with teary eyes
With the pillow as his companion that silenced him
The other emotion, was that of pleading, to Him
It was strange, very strange
In one aspect, he believed that He existed
Only when he invoked on behalf of his beloveds
In the other aspect, he was doubtful
His faith was very weak
He doubted once again
And the doubt still lingers
When matters he thought of
Were related to his own self, his soul
He no longer cared for him-self

His pleadings were simple

O God, O Lord, I ask
I ask from You, not for my sake,
But for the sake of the one who love You
And Love you with an attentive heart
With an alert mind
With a polished soul
Grant them respite, grant them peace
Grant them a life of ease with him
Straighten their affairs, untie the knots

I know, O Lord, my words don’t mean much
There is a dichotomy in what I say and what I do
My Lord, this is not for me, this is for the loved ones
My love for them has transformed me
I see them through their words and deeds
That are to please You and You alone
Reminding me of You, a Loving God
But he has a difficult time holding on to this rope
Ya al-Wadud, Ya al-Jabbar

Forgive me O Lord,
Would you accept my love of them
As a token of my love for You?

Would you take all the good deeds I have
And bestow them to my loved ones

I don’t know of what other way to love You
To show an appreciation of you
To admit that there is a kernel of truth
Or a kernel, that would testify to my
Own acceptance of you, as a Sovereign Lord

My heart aches
When she is home with the children
My heart yearned yesterday to relieve her, to comfort them all
My heart ached yesterday
When his sufferings and struggles
Are a burden to her, and the children

I Lord, my soul is dark, my heart is weakened and my intellect
It has succumbed to depression
I just want to sit down in the ruins of a tavern
And be left in a state of ignonimity

Served as a reminder, of One who
Who is struggling with surrender
Who is struggling to surrender
Alas !!! even my age betrays me now
My health in a condition that belies matters
Of the self healing powers through the love
The Love of You O dear Lord

O dear Lord, this is for my loved ones
Make me not a source of grief and anxiety for them
Make me not a source of regret for them
Make me not … make me nothing

Let me not be ruined in the tavern of sadness
Brought about by separation
Separation from love
The love of them
The love of You through them
I have not recognized You
I have not recognized them

Alas ! madness prevails
I yet, hold onto You
I will hold onto You

Shukr Alhamdulillah Ya Rabbil Alamin
Ya Wadud, Ya Jabbar, Ya Rahman, Ya Rahim

Article: The Martyrdom of al-Husayn (r)

Shahadat Imam Husayn (ra)

by

Syed A. Ala Mawdudi

Idara Tarjamanul Quran, Lahore, Pakistan

Translated from the Urdu by Ali Abbas Q.

No Copyright

The Martrydom of Imam al-Husayn (ra)

IN THE NAME OF GOD, THE BENEFICENT, THE MERCIFUL.

THE OBJECTIVE OF MARTYRDOM
Every year, in the month of Muharram, millions of Shi'as and Sunnis alike, mourn Imam Husayn's [ra] martyrdom. But alas, however, that of these mourners very few focus their attention on the objective (maqsad) for which the Imam not only sacrificed his life but also the lives of his kith and kin. It is but innate (fitri) for his family members and those who foster feelings of love, respect and empathy for his family to express their grief over his martyrdom. The nature of this sadness and grief is expressed by those who have familial ties and relation with them. The moral (akhlaqi) appreciation and futility of this sentiment with the persona of this individual is not more than the love that bears out innately (fitri) from relatives, families and sympathizers of his kin.

But the question [we need to ask our-selves] is, what is so particular about Imam Husayn [ra] that even though 1320 years have elapsed, his grief remains fresh? If his martyrdom was not for a sacred objective (maqsad e azim), then the mere continuation of this remembrance on a personal level and affiliation is meaningless. And in the eyes of Imam Husayn [ra], what value would this personal love and devotion hold? If his own self (zat) were dearer than the objective, then would he have sought martyrdom? His martyrdom bears witness to the evidence that that he held the objective more dear than his own life. Therefore, if we do not work for this objective and to the contrary work against it, our mere continuity of lamentation (giryah o zari) and the cursing (lan tan) of his killers will not earn us an appreciation from the Imam on the day of resurrection, nor should we expect that our actions will hold value with God.

Now, we are to assess, what was that objective? Did the Imam affirm his claim to authority and rule by virtue of personal right (zati istehqaq), for which he staked his life to vindicate his claim? Anyone who knows the high moral standard of Imam Husayn's [ra] household cannot harbor the vile notion that they would cause bloodshed among the Muslims to gain temporal sovereignty (iqtidar). Even for a moment if we consider this viewpoint acceptable --the opinion that this family held a personal right to rule-- a glance at the fifty year history from Abu Bakr [ra] to Amir Muawiyah [ra] bears evidence that waging war and causing bloodshed merely to seize power had never been their motive. As a logical corollary, one has to admit that the Imam's keen eye discerned symptoms of decay and corruption in the system of Muslim society and the Islamic state, and thus he felt impelled to struggle (jido jahed) against these forces --even if it required treading a path of war which he not only considered to be legitimate (jaiz) but an obligation (farz) as well.

CHANGE IN THE STATE'S TEMPERAMENT, OBJECTIVE AND RULE

What was that imminent change (taghayyur)? Obviously people had not changed their religion (din). All people including the ruling class had faith in God, the Prophet and the Qur'an in the same manner as they did in the past. Laws for the state had not changed. Judicial courts carried out decisions of matters in the light of the Qur'an and tradition of the Prophet (sunna) during Bani Umayyah's reign, as they were carried out prior to their reign of ascension to the rule (barsare iqtidar). As a matter of fact, no legal change ever took place in any Muslim state in the world prior to the 19th century. Some people highlight Yazid's personal character (shaksi qirdar), giving currency to a common misunderstanding that the stance taken by Imam and his uprising was to prevent the ascension to power of a man of reprehensible character. But in spite of presenting the worst possible picture of Yazid's character, and its acceptance thereof without any apprehension, that even if the state is founded on correct principles, the ascension of a man of reprehensible character to the position of governance, is not a matter of concern. A concern that would incur an impatience attitude from Imam Husayn: a man of wisdom, foresight and knowledge of the Shari'a. It is for this reason that the persona of the individual is not the correct reason for the mental perturbation of the Imam. A deep (ghair) study of history will bring to our realization that Yazid's nomination as his father's successor, and his later coronation as king, marked the beginnings of an [un-healthy] change (kharabi) in the object and conduct of the Islamic Constitution. Although the results (nataij) of this change were not apparent at that instant, a farsighted person could easily comprehend the nature of the change, and the eventuality of the course it embarks upon. It was this change [in direction] and the catastrophe towards which the Islamic State was heading that the Imam foresaw, and he resolved to stake his life to prevent it.

POINT OF DEVIATION

In order to fully understand this situation, we have to find out the characteristic feature of the constitution that had been guiding the state administration for a period of forty years under the leadership of the Prophet and the rightly-guided caliphs [khulafa i rashidin]. Further, what were the main features of the administrative system of a new Muslim state taking birth under the aegis of the Umayyads, Abbasids and subsequent dynasties right up from the time of Yazid's nomination? With this comparative study we shall be able to establish the course of its [point of deviation] development, and what course it took after this point of deviation. Also from this comparison we shall understand why a person who was brought up and trained under the guidance of the Prophet, Sayida Fatima [ra] and Hazrat 'Ali [ra], and who shared the companionship of the best of the companions from his infancy to adulthood,

1. would take a stand and offer resistance to the course of the changes,

2. and would pay no heed to the consequences of resistance and the eventuality of the outcome.

BEGINNING OF KINGSHIP

The first and foremost (awallin) feature of the Islamic State would reflect that rather than mere oral assent, a conviction from the heart (sache dil) and conformity of deeds with actions attests and bears witness to the faith (in the following propositions):

(a) that the sovereignty of the Muslim state is wholly vested in the Supreme Being;

(b) the people are God's subjects; the rulers are accountable to God;

(c) the government does not exercise power over its subjects, nor are the subjects its slaves;

(d) the rulers are first to exercise their servitude and bondage (bandagi o ghulami) to God and then to implement the divine laws among their subjects.

But Yazid's nomination as successor marked the beginning of that type of kingship in which the concept of God's sovereignty was reduced to merely, an oral assent (zabani aiteraf). Practically, he adopted the same view that has always been maintained by monarchs, i.e. sovereignty is vested in the monarch and his family, and he is the undisputed master of the life, property, honor and every tangible and intangible entity of his subjects. The Divine Law, if instituted in his kingship, was enforced on the subjects; the King, his family, the nobles and the officials were exempted (mustashna) from it.

SUSPENSION OF THE MORAL OBLIGATION TO ENJOIN WHAT IS RIGHT AND FORBID WHAT IS WRONG

The objective of the Islamic State was to establish and propagate those virtues in God's dominion that are dear to Him, and to suppress and eradicate those evils that are disliked by Him. But after having chosen the path of monarchy, the objective of the state was none other than indulging in the undue conquests, self-aggrandizement, the collection of tribute and the gratification of sensual desires. The monarchs were rarely inclined to serve the purpose of living up to the sacrament of witnessing [the kalima]. The monarchs, their nobles and their officials were instrumental in propagating vice than virtue. Most of the godly persons who contributed their mite to the promotion of good, suppression of vice, preaching the religion of Islam, compiling books on the sciences of religion, let alone receiving patronage, incurred the displeasure of the rulers, met opposition (alal raghm). Despite these efforts, the mode of life and the policy of the rulers, officers and their subordinates continuously led the Muslim society to moral degradation. Surpassing all limits, for their own personal sake they did not hesitate to create obstacles in the propagation of Islam, and the worst example of this practice being the imposition of tax on the converts to Islam by the Bani Ummayyah.

The soul (ruh) of the Islamic State rests in piety (taqwa) and fear of God (khuda tarsi), and it's reflection (mazhar) is borne by the head of the state. The state's employees, judges and military officers are imbued with this spirit, and in turn they infuse it back to the society. But once they tread the path of monarchy, the Muslim states and their rulers adopted the pomp and pageantry of Caesar. Oppression and injustice overruled justice. Instead of righteousness, profligacy and luxury had come into vogue. The failure to distinguish between the lawfulness and unlawfulness of affairs, rendered in a lack of character and actions of the rulers. Politics was no longer cogent with morality. The rulers kept their subjects under fear instead of instilling the fear of God; and instead of awakening their faith (iman) and conscious (zamir) they bought them by virtue of favors.

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF ISLAMIC CONSTITUTION

Such was the deplorable change in the spirit and temperament, purpose and character of the Muslim rulers. A similar change also appeared in the fundamental principles of the Islamic constitution. While the constitution was based on certain important principles, each of them was changed.

1. Free Election
A government is to be established on the free consent of the masses and this is the foundation of the Islamic constitution. [This was meant to ensure that] No individual by his struggle be able to secure power for himself, and that the masses should entrust power to best among the candidates after mutual consultation. Allegiance should not be secured based on rulership but ought instead be a pre-requisite. There should be no maneuvering to secure allegiance [or oath of fealty] on the individual's behalf. Everyone should be free to exercise their right to pay allegiance or to refuse it. Unless the oath of allegiance is secured, no one should seize power; and when confidence is lost [in his rule], no longer should the individual be in a position to rule. Each of the righteous successors to the Prophet came to power according to this prescribed article. In the case of Amir Muawiyah his position [of claim to succession] became dubious. This is the reason why he was not included among the righteous successors [of the Prophet], despite of his being a companion [of the Prophet]. And, eventually it was the drastic event of Yazid's nomination [as Muawiyah's successor] that overturned the [validity] of these articles. This resulted in the beginning of a chain of hereditary monarchy --and every since, the Muslims have not been able to revert back to the [principle of] electing a caliph. Now individuals had assumed rule not by virtue of free and consultative deliberations of the masses but by their dint of power. Allegiance was secured through power instead of securing power through allegiance. The masses were not free in giving or holding back their oaths of allegiance. Securing allegiance was no longer a prerequisite of acquiring power. In the first place, people had no option to refuse allegiance to the ruling individual. And even if people refused to give allegiance, the person ruling did not part with it [rule].When Imam Malik during the reign of Mansor Abbasi committed the offense of asking the caliph to abstain from coercive method of securing allegiance, he was flogged and his arms were amputated.

2. Principle of Consultation
The second important article of this constitution was the establishment of a consultative system of government, where advice should be sought from individuals of learned, pious disposition [also possessing] sound judgment, who enjoy the confidence and trust of the masses. During the period of the righteous successors, members of the consultative council were not elected. By modern day standards they were elected by the consent of the people. They were not appointed as advisors by the caliphs because they would serve as "yes men" or [men who would] serve their interests. As a matter of fact, they chose the best persons from amongst the community with all sincerity and an unbiased attitude, who were expected to uphold the truth; express their opinion according to the dictates of their conscience with integrity. There was not the least suspicion that they would permit the government to astray. Had elections been held in this time in accordance with the existing norms, the general Muslims would have reposed confidence in the same persons only. With the advent of the monarchy, the consultative system underwent a transformation. The monarchical administration was based on autocratic and despotic methods. The princes, sycophants, courtiers, provincial governors and military commanders served in council as members. Adviser's positions were assumed only by those persons who, if opinion polls had been taken in their case, would have scored thousands votes of censure against one vote of confidence. The truth loving, the learned and the God fearing persons who enjoyed public confidence had no value in the eyes of despotic rulers. Instead, they incurred the king's wrath or were looked upon with suspicion.

3. Freedom for Expression of Opinion
The third principle of the constitution provided for the freedom of expression. The furtherance of virtue and suppression of evils have been enjoined by Islam not only as the right of Muslims, but as an obligation. Freedom of conscience and speech was the pivot on which the Islamic society and state administration functioned in the right direction. The people must have the liberty to find fault with the most prominent among the Muslims in case they went astray and be outspoken in all matters. During the tenure of the righteous caliphs, the rights of the people were not only protected, but the caliphs regarded it as their duty and encouraged the people in the discharge of such a duty. Freedom of speech, giving a warning and demanding an explanation from the Caliph himself was not restricted only to the members of the consultative council, but this was enjoyed by each and every individual Muslim. If they exercised this right, they were not taken to task. On the other hand, their bold step was extolled and applauded. This freedom was not a gift of the ruler, but it was a constitutional right bestowed upon them by Islam and they regarded it as their duty to pay due respect to it [i.e. the masses exercising their rights]. The use of this privilege for the vindication of truth was an obligation entrusted on every Muslim by God and his apostle, and its very purpose served to keep the atmosphere of the society and state congenial for the fulfillment of this obligation, which [upholding this right] was considered to be an integral part of the function of the Caliphate.

With the beginning of monarchy, the voice of conscience was stifled and freedom [for expression of opinion] was denied. Now the norm in session was that if any one had to voice their opinion, it should be in the favor of the ruler, or else they should maintain silence if the urge of conscience was so powerful that one could not desist from declaring the truth, they had to be prepared for the imprisonment or loss of life. This policy, slowly and gradually led the Muslims to a [moral] decay and they became discouraged, turned coward and time servers. The number of individuals who could risk their life by adhering to truth began to diminish. Flattery and wickedness loomed at large in the society and adherence to principles of truth and rectitude loss their value. Highly qualified and honest persons severed their relations with the government. People disliked the monarchical government so much that their hearts held no desire to uphold it. When a new regime emerged to displace the old one, people did not move in support of the later. One regime succeeded another. People witnessed the incoming and out going spectacle as passive spectators without evincing any interest therein.

4. Accountability before the Creator and His Creation
The fourth principle, closely related to the third principle [freedom for expression of opinion], was both the Caliph and his government are accountable before God and God's creation. As far as the sense of this responsibility is concerned, it kept the righteous caliphs restless day and night. And in relation to the accountability before [God's] creation, each of them considered himself accountable before the masses. It was not necessary that the caliph should be questioned before the consultative council only after raising a call motion. They faced the public five times, every day in the congregational prayer at the mosque. Every week on Fridays, the caliphs acquainted the masses with the affairs of the state and also lent them ears. They moved about in the market place without being escorted with body-guards and mixed with the people unprotected by a security force. The portals of the government buildings were open and the caliph was accessible to everyone. On all such occasions, one could solicit questions and seek replies. They [the caliphs] had to be ready to be questioned by anyone, at any time. The right to submit questions [to the caliph] was not restricted to the representatives alone, but was enjoyed and exercised by every individual. Caliphs assumed power with the consent of the masses and they [masses] were the supreme authority competent to remove a caliph and elect another in his place. The elected caliph did not, therefore anticipate any threat in meeting the masses, and neither were they afraid of being removed from the office. The monarchist government was devoid of the concept of accountability [before God or His creation]. For them the accountability to the Creator was a mere oral assent and was rarely translated into action. And as to accountability to the masses, nobody had the courage to ask them for an explanation [of their deeds]. Caliphs exercised absolute authority over the them. They had acquired power by the dint of force, and their slogan was a challenge: to those who had the might, to wrestle power from their hands. How can such individuals face the masses, and how can they have access to them? Even when they offered prayers, it was done either in well guarded mosques in special locations, or if in an open place, they were generally surrounded by their close associates. Whenever they went in vehicles, they had an armed police guard both in front and behind to keep the way clear of traffic. There was scarcely any chance of their coming across the public.

5. The Public Treasury, a Trust
The fifth principle of the Islamic constitution laid down that the public treasury was God's property and a trust from the Muslims. Nothing should be received except through lawful means, and nothing should be spent on except lawful purposes. The Caliph enjoyed only so much jurisdiction over it as a trustee has over the property of a minor orphan under his custody, as [the Qur'an says IV:6] Whoever is rich, let him abstain altogether, and whoever is poor, let him eat reasonably. The Caliph was to be accountable for its income and expenditure and the Muslims held every right to ask the caliph for its distribution as well. The righteous Caliphs meticulously followed this principle. Whatever was deposited in the treasury was done so according to the principles of Islamic law, and whatever was spent was done so for due needs. Whoever was well-to-do, performed honorary services without drawing a single penny from the public treasury towards his remuneration. Moreover, he never hesitated to spend out of his pocket for the nation. Those who could not serve without emoluments, they took the minimum to meet the essential requirements of life. Every reasonable person would admit that the remuneration they took was far less than what was actually due. Even a hostile critic would not dare to criticize it. Every Muslim had the right to demand the accounts of the income and expenditure of the public treasury, and the Caliphs were always prepared for accountability. A common man could submit a question to the Caliph: how he was able to prepare such a lengthy tunic for himself although the dimensions of the sheets of the cloth received from Yemen could not make one of so big a size? But when the Caliphate degenerated into monarchy, the public treasury became the exclusive property of the monarch instead of the Divine and of the masses. Money was being received both through lawful and unlawful resources and squandered in legal and illegal ways. No one dared to hold them accountable. The entire revenue of the state was a source of enjoyment which was being exploited by everyone from an ordinary letter bearer right up to the state administrator, according to their capabilities. They were completely unmindful of the fact that authority over administration was not a license for misappropriating the public trust. They were fully convinced that they could continue to devour the public treasury and no one would hold them accountable [for their deeds].

6. Rule of the Law
The sixth principle of this constitution was that the country will be governed by law (i.e. the law of God and His prophet). Nobody should be over-and-above the law, nor should they transgress the limits demarcated by law. There should be uniform legal provision for all from a common man to the head of the state, and its enforcement should be for all without discrimination. Partiality should not be allowed to intrude into matters of justice and equity, and the courts of law should be free from being influenced. The righteous Caliphs had set the best example of adherence to this principle. In spite of enjoying more power than monarchs, they strictly adhered to this Divine Law. Friendship and nepotism never induced the Caliphs to ignore the prescribed rules and regulations, nor their displeasure caused harm to any one against the canons of the Islamic law. If any one happened to infringe their right, the matter was referred to court, just like an ordinary citizen. In case some one had a complaint against them, grievances were addressed in the court of law. Similarly the governors and commanders in chief were held in the grip of law, and no one dared influence the judge in the judicial matters. Anyone who contravened the provisions of the law had no chance of escaping the legal consequences. No sooner the Caliphate was converted to monarchism, this article [of the constitution] was consigned to oblivion. Not only the kings, princes, nobles, officials and commanders, but even favorite valets and maid servants connected with the palace were considered over and above the law. People were physically and morally at their mercy. There were two balances of justice: one for the weak and second for the influential. Pressure was brought to bear on the judges' decisions in the courts, and those who observed integrity in deciding cases had to pay a heavy price for their integrity and scrupulous regard for justice. The God-fearing jurists preferred bearing torture and imprisonment to becoming instrumental in perpetrating aggression and high-handedness, lest they fall prey to Divine chastisement.

7. Complete Equality in Rights and Status
The seventh principle of the Islamic Constitution pertained to complete equality in rights and status, which was completely assured in the early period of the Islamic State. There was no distinction among the Muslims on the basis of race, language and place of birth. No one enjoyed superiority over another on the basis of clan, family and race. There was equality in the rights and status of all those who believed in God and His Apostle. If preference was to be accorded, it was accorded based on character, capability attitude and service. When the Caliphate was replaced with monarchism, the demons of prejudice and bigotry raised their heads. The tribes related to the monarchs were assigned position of advantages over other tribes. Prejudice and distinction between Arabs and non-Arabs was revived and conflicts emerged. History bears witness to the extent of damage caused to the Islamic entity by these factional wranglings.

Imam Husayn's Character as a Believer

These were the changes that appeared in the wake of converting the Islamic Caliphate into a monarchy. No one can deny that Yazid's nomination as successor to his father was the starting point of all these transformations. It cannot be gainsaid that after a short span of time from the point of origin, all the corrupt practices mentioned above came into existence. At the time when this revolutionary step was taken, even though these evils had not yet surfaced, a man of vision could have predicted these inevitable consequences of such a beginning. And predicted that the reforms introduced by Islam in the administrative and political phases of the state would be rendered null and void by these changes. This is the reason why Imam Husayn could not remain indifferent, and he decided to stem the tide of the evil forces by taking the risk of confronting the worst consequences by rising in revolt against an established government. The consequences of this bold stand are known to every one. The fact which the Imam wanted to emphasize, by plunging himself into grave danger and enduring its consequences heroically, was that the fundamental features of an Islamic State are valuable assets. It would not be a bad bargain if a believer sacrificed his life and had his family members slain in return for this valuable objective. A believer should not hesitate to sacrifice all that he possesses for preventing the changes which constitutes a danger to the religion of Islam and the Muslim community which is a custodian of the principles mentioned above. One is at liberty to contemptuously disregard it as merely a maneuver for securing political power, but in the eyes of Husayn Ibn 'Ali, it was primarily a religious obligation. He therefore laid down his life in this cause gaining the crown of martyrdom.

Book: Islam, Sunnah and Apostasy

Punishment
Of
APOSTASY IN ISLAM

S.A. Rahman
(Rtd.) Chief Justice of Pakistan

Kitab Bhavan, New Delhi 2, India

No CopyRight

Chapter II

Apostasy and the Sunnah
Section I

Before taking up the specific ahadith (traditions) which are relied upon by the proponents of the death sentence for apostasy, it would be useful to clear the ground by a few observations concerning the relative positions of the Qur'an and the Hadith. Imam Shafi'i in his al‑Risalah [1] has clearly enunciated the principle that the commandments contained in the Qur'an can be ab­rogated only by another verse of the Our'an and not by any authority lower in status. He holds definitely that the Sunnah of the Prophet cannot perform any such Abrogating function vis‑a‑vis the Qur'an, for it is itself subject to the Book of God in respect of all clear and well‑defined Qur'anic texts (Nusus). Of course, he says, it can interpret, explain or expound, with subsi­diary details, the summary commandments included in the Qur'an. In support of‑his position, Shafi'i cites the verse of the Qur'an

And when Our Clear revelations are recited unto them, they who look for the meeting with Us, say: Bring a Qur'an other than this or change it. day (O Muhammad): it is not for me to change it of my own accord. I only follow that which is revealed to me. Lo! if I disobey my Lord, I fear the retribution of an awful day (Yunus, verse 15).

He also draws strength for his argument from verse 106 of Surat al‑Baqarah : "Whatever revelation We abrogate or cause to be forgotten We bring (in its place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not Allah is able to do all things?"

It is thus Allah alone Who can change what has emanated from Him and, considering the fundamental position of the Qur'an in Islam, this stands to reason.

Maulana Badr‑i‑`Alam Nadvi in his Tarjuman al-­Sunnah [2] says, on the authority of extracts from Imam Shatibi's al‑Muwafaqat, that the Sunnah occupies a place of secondary importance as compared with the Book of God and that generally it can be asserted firmly that the Sunnah cannot be placed on the same level with the Qur'an in point of regard and reverence. This is the reason why Taftazani in his Talwih [3] lays it down as a guiding principle that in case of conflict with the text of the Qur'an, Khabar al‑Wahid (a tradition related by one person from another individual or by one person from a group or by a group from one person, so long as the number of narrators is less than those in the case of Hadith Mash-hur [reputed tradition]) will be rejected. Such a hadith is said to be only Mufid‑i‑Zann (as raising only a presumption).

In the fourth chapter of Hujjat‑Allah al‑Balighah, [4] Part I, Shah Wali Ullah has categorised the extant compilations of traditions in their order of reliability and importance. He thinks that only al‑Muwatta' of Imam Malik, Sahih Bukhai and Sahih Muslim deserve to be placed in the first category. The compilations like those of Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah and Nasa'i, which are generally included among the Sihah Sittah (the Six Accurate Books) and Musnad of Imam Ahmad, he assigns to the second category. He adds that the Muhaddithin (Experts in Tradition) consider these two categories only to be worthy of reliance and not the books falling in the third and fourth categories such as Musnad of Abi 'Ali, Musannaf of `Abd‑ur‑Razzaq, Musannaf of Abi Bakr b. Abi Shaibah, Musnad of `Abd b. Hamid, Musnad of Tayalisi, and books by Baihaqi, Tahavi, Tabarani, Ibn Habban, Ibn `Adi, Khatib, Abi Nu'aim, Ibn al‑‘Asakir, Khwarazmi, Ibn Najjar, Dailami, and others. There are also fabricated ahadith, collected and criticised by Mulla 'Ali Qari and Ibn al Jauzi among others. Traditions themselves are differentiated inter se in order of authenti­city and reliability. In point of priority they are desig­nated as Mutawatir (continuous) Mustafid (narrated in several ways and accepted), Mash‑hur (reputed), Sahih (accepted as correct) and Hasan (approved), and the lowest tier in this hierarchy is that of Khabar Ahad. The number and reliability of the chain of narrators, its continuity or otherwise, evidence of implementation or rejection, conformity with the Qur'anic letter or spirit as well as with known historical or rational facts, are some of the factors which determine this order of priority. The human factor of lapse of memory or of failure to comprehend fully the circumstances surround­ing a tradition is also a pertinent consideration. The classical instance of Hadrat `A'yeshah, [5] the Prophet's wife, correcting Ibn `Umar (or according to one version, Hadrat `Umar, the Second Caliph, himself) in respect of his opinion that the lamentations of a deceased person's relatives entail torture in the after‑life for the dead person is very apt in this context. Hadrat `A'yeshah's comment was that the hadith had not been properly understood or recollected. She explained that in fact the Prophet had passed by a Jewish woman who had died, and had seen her relatives lamenting, when he observed: "They are crying and she is being subjected to torture." It was wrongly assumed that there was a casual nexus between the two sentences uttered by the Prophet, and she cited the Qur'an : "No bearer of burden can bear the burden of another" (al‑An'am, verse 164).

She evidently invoked the principle that a hadith could not possibly contradict a clear text of the Qur'an and interpreted the reported tradition in its light. Shah Wali Allah too in his `Iqd al jid lays down the principle that Sunnah only explains the Qur'an and can never contra­dict it. [6]

Section II

(1) The principal hadith on which the case for the death sentence for apostasy is built up is the one narrat­ed by Ibn 'Abbas in the words: "Whosoever changes his religion, slay him." This is the version given by Bukhari in his Sahih‑"Kitab al Jihad fi Istitabat al‑Murtaddin". To it is annexed the story of Hadrat 'Ali burning to death a number of Zanadiqah (heretics), and Ibn 'Abbas, on being informed of the incident, is stated to have re­marked that he would not have burnt them but merely killed them, for the Prophet had forbidden the burning of human beings. He then recited this hadith.

The same hadith is also traced [7] to Hadrat `Ayeshah by al‑Tabarani in his Mu`jamat al‑Wast. According to another narrator, Mu'awiyah b. Hidah, as recorded in al‑Tabarani's Mu`jamat al‑Kabir, the full hadith should read: "Whosoever changes his faith, slay him. Verily Allah does not accept repentance from His servant who has adopted disbelief after having accepted Islam." The latter part of this version apparently contradicts the Qur'anic texts, which we have already noticed, and is unreliable.

AI‑Samaia'I [8] reproduces this hadith from Sunan al­-Nasa'i (Sharh al‑Suyuti) and observes that many juris­consults have accepted its authority, but there is a good deal of difference between them as to its meaning. Imam Shafi'i and Ibn Hazm are reported to have expressed the view that the words of the hadith being general, it would apply even to a disbeliever who changes his faith. On the contrary, the majority of the jurisconsults and Imam Malik held the opinion that it is confined to Muslims who become renegades from Islam. It is pointed out that the logical result of the first view would lead to the absurd proposition that even a disbeliever who adopts Islam ought to be killed for his change of faith. Consequently the hadith, according to better opinion, cannot be interpreted in its literal sense and is susceptible of an obvious limitation to Muslims. It is also argued in favour of the second group that, according to another hadith, all disbelievers, whatever variety of faiths they may profess, constitute a single community (Millat al­Wahidah) and consequently change from one form of disbelief to another would not alter their position vis‑a‑vis Islam and could not be regarded as a change of faith, in the real sense.

None of these sources, however, indicates the circum­stances which provided the occasion for this qauli (verbal) hadith. On the face of it, the hadith is mujmal‑a summary statement‑and calls for futher elucidation.

Difference of opinion prevails among Doctors of Law as to whether it applies to a woman apostate or not. Al‑Samara'i mentions that Imam Malik, al‑Auza`i, Imam al‑Shafi'i and al‑Laith b. Sa'd accepted this hadith as sufficient authority for killing a Muslim woman who leaves the fold of Islam, having regard to the general nature of the expressions used therein. However, al­-Thauri, Imam Abu Hanifah and his followers, Ibn Shabramah, Ibn `Aliyyah, 'Ata' and al‑Hasan excluded women from its scope. Their argument was that Ibn 'Abbas, the principal narrator of the hadith, had himself declared that a female apostate should not be killed, [10] as the Prophet had forbidden the slaying of women in wars. The Shafi`is, the Hanbalis, the Zaidis and the Malikis place men and women on the same footing, in this respect, but the Hanafis and the Imamiyyah Shi`ahs say that the woman will be imprisoned till she repents. Sarakhsi, among the Ahnaf, apparently took the view that a woman who was possessed of sound judgment and capacity to give orders can also be condemned to death for apostasy, though, normally, she would be immune from that sentence. Al‑Samara'i has dealt with the question at length, in Ahkam al‑Murtadd. Other authorities too have pointedly referred to this exemption. [11] The Maliki Ibn al‑Qudamah, in his al‑Mughni, says that a Muharibah woman is not to be killed but only imprisoned. [12]

There are other recognised exceptions that still fur­ther restrict the scope of this tradition. Dr Muhammad Hamidullah, in his Muslim Conduct of State, has sum­marised the position in these words: "In case an insane person, a delirious, a melancholy, a perplexed man, a minor, one intoxicated or who had declared his faith in Islam under coercion and a person whose faith in Islam has not been known or established, were to become apostate, they would not suffer the supreme penalty. So too, an apostate woman and a hermaphrodite, accord­ing to the Hanafi school of Law, would not be con­demned to death but imprisoned and even physically tortured. An old man from whom no offspring is expect­ed is also excepted." [13] In support of this statement he refers to Kasani, Bada'i`, VII, 134; Sarakhsi, Mabsut, X, 123 ; Ibn `Abidin, Radd al‑Muhtar, III, 246 and 326‑71; Abu Yusuf, Kharaj, p. 111 ; Sarakhsi, Sharh al‑Usul, Chapter "al Juz' Yalhaqat al‑Takdhib." These exemp­tions also find mention in various chapters of Ahkam al­-Murtadd by al‑Samarra'i. The Fath al‑Bari too adverts to two exceptions, viz. of a hypocrite and one forced to the faith. [14]

If then the accepted position be that the hadith is not to be taken literally and is subject to several qualifications and the circumstances in which the relevant words were uttered by the Prophet are not precisely known, would it be too much to take the next step and suggest that there is also underlying the hadith a tacit assumption that the person concerned must be guilty of Muharabah (active hostility) ? This would have the merit of bringing the purport of the hadith into conformity with verse 34 of Surat al‑Maidah: "The only reward of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to create disorder in the land, is that they may be slain or crucified ...."

That this suggestion is not a novel one would be borne out by what several Doctors of Law have already indicated as the basis for the death penalty in their writings. In the Hidayah, Marghinani, while discussing the question whether it is necessary to allow time for repentance to an apostate or not [15] says: "And for us there is the word of God, `Kill the polytheists ...' with­out restriction as to time for repentance and so also is the saying of the Prophet (on him be peace): 'Whoso­ever changes his faith, slay him,' and that is because he is a Kafir harbi (a disbeliever and active rebel) whom the call has reached. He would, therefore, be killed instantly without time being allowed for repentance ...." It is clear that Marghinani's analysis establishes the effective cause of the supreme penalty to be active hostility or rebellion. This opinion is further elaborated and con­firmed in the Mabsat, [16] the Bahr al‑Ra'iq, [17] the Fath al­-Qadir and by the commentaries of Chalpi and Babarti. [18] It is explained in these books that the exemption in favour of a woman is grounded on the fact that she is incapable of bearing arms, normally. Further, it is said that disbelief intrinsically does not justify condemnation to death and that is the genesis of the rule that the blind and the very old will not be killed. A woman apostate may, however, be slain, if she possesses independent judgment and has a following. Zaila'i in his commentary on the Kanz al‑Daqziq [19] says explicitly: "The reference in the hadith is to one who fights against us . . . ." Marghi­nani too observes in the Hidayah [20], that the punishments are postponed to the, Hereafter, as their acceleration (and implementation in this world) would interfere with the significance of trial and testing (in this life). This view will be reinforced when we consider the various versions of the next tradition to be discussed.

Among other reasons given by him for doubting the authenticity of the hadith under discussion, Nawab A'zam Yar Jang [21] (Maulvi Charagh 'Ali) mentions that there is a gap between `Ikramah and Ibn 'Abbas and again between the latter and the Prophet, in the chain of narrators. This may not perhaps appeal to many as a solid ground for rejection of the hadith which figures in several well‑known compilations. But an alternative approach has been to interpret the word uqtaluhu (kill him) occurring in the hadith, not literally, but figurative­ ly, and precedents are cited in support of this suggestion. When the Bani Isra'il had taken to the worship of the calf, according to the well‑known narrative in the Qur'an (Surat al‑Baqarah), Moses advised them "to turn to their Maker" and added "faqtula anfusakum" which may mean, if taken literally, "kill yourselves," but has been interpreted by some commentators as an admonition to kill, their evil passions. Reference may be made in this connection, inter alia, to Bahr al‑Muhit. [22] Again, on the Prophet's death on the day of Thaqifah, when there was a gathering of the Ansar, at which the chief of the Khazraj named Sa'd set himself up as a candidate for the Caliphate, Hadrat `Umar is said to have called out " Uqtala as‑Sa'd, aqtalaha Allah." In this sentence the word uqtala which literally means "kill" has been construed as meaning "treat him as if he is dead and do not advert to what he says," in the Aqrab al‑Mawarid and the Nihayah of Ibn al‑Kathir. The same authorities assign a similar meaning to the word uqtala occurring in the hadith : "If two Caliphs have obtained allegiance (from the people), treat one of them as if he is dead (uqtalii), and ignore his claim." One of the meanings assigned to the expression qatl al‑nafs in the Mufradat by Imam Raghib Isfahani is "killing the base passions".

But this line of reasoning may not be apt, if a variant of this hadith as given by Imam Malik in his Muwatta' (Chapter headed "al‑Qada' fi man Artadda `an al‑Islam") is read with it. [23] The wording therein given is: Man ghayyara dinaha fadribu unuqahu" ‑ "Whosoever changes his faith, smite his neck." These words are not equivocal and would not leave room for any metaphorical con­struction. But Imam Malik adds the comment after giving the hadith that if a Muslim adopts another creed but conceals his disbelief and professes Islam out‑wardly, then, on proof of his guilt, he shall be slain, without opportunity for repentance being conceded to him, on the ground that such people cannot be trusted. The opportunity to repent, according to him, would be valid only in the case of one who openly adopts another faith, after having accepted Islam. This opinion, with all respect for the high status, piety and learning of Imam Malik, one may venture to suggest, would apparently be inconsistent with the treatment meted out to known hypocrites during the Prophet's time and to the hadith according to which the Prophet had chided Usamah b. Zaid on his admission that he had killed a man of the Juhainah tribe in combat, even after he had recited the Kalimah (Declaration of Faith). Usamah pleaded that the man had done so merely to save his life and the Prophet queried: "Did you dissect his heart and look into it?" The tradition is included in Sahih al‑Bukhay [24] as well as in Sahih al‑Muslim and Mishkat al‑Masabih [25] of Shaikh Wali al‑Din Muhammad b. `Abdullah Khatib `Umri, with slight variations.

The fact that this hadath exists in a verbally different version, though carrying the same sense, may perhaps justify the criticism that narrators may have retained what they understood to be the purport of the tradition and may have failed to recollect the exact words and the full circumstances surrounding the origin of the saying. This consideration may be allowed to fortify the attempt at its reconciliation with the Qur'anic text by evocation of its ‑underlying assumption that the person involved must have joined those warring against the Muslims. This indeed is the approach of Maulana Thana' Ullah to this hadith and the hadith to be considered next, in Islam auy Masihiyyat. [26] He observes that Islam as a polity had to fight for its existence and these two tradi­tions pertain to a situation where a Muslim forsakes Islam and the Muslim community and he would then be presumed to have connections with the enemies of Muslims. In order words, he says, he himself assumes the position of an enemy and the rule laid down in these reports amounts to a law of war.

Section III

The next tradition to be considered has several verbal variants and, in some of them, the additional words are very significant. The formulation by 'Abdullah b. Mas'ud runs in these terms

(1) The Prophet (on him be blessings and peace of God) said: It is not lawful to shed the blood of a person professing Islam, who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah, except in three cases: life for a life, or a married person guilty of adultery or a person who separates from his faith and deserts his community. (Bukhari, "Kitab al‑Diyat," "Bab al‑Nafs bi al‑Nafs"). [27] A similar version exists in Tirmidhi's Sunan.

(2) In the same "Kitab al‑Diyat," "Bab al‑Qasamah," Bukhari records another version narrated by Abu Qulabah : "The Messenger did not put to death anyone by way of Hadd (prescribed punishment) except for one of three antecedents: a person who commits murder of his own free will shall be killed, (so also) a person who commits fornication after marriage or a person who fights Allah and His Messenger and becomes an apostate from Islam." [28]

(3) A summary version is attributed to Hadrat A'yeshah in Sunan al‑Nasa'i, in which the relevant words
for the third category of persons are "one who com­mits apostasy, after accepting Islam". A full version is, however, also contained in Nasa'i's Sunan, which brings out the element of hostility to the community on the part of the apostate. [29] An alternative detailed version is assigned to Hadrat `A'yeshah by Abu Dawud ("Kitab al‑Hudud," "Bab al‑Hukm fi man Artadda)." [30] Therein the third category is defined as comprising of a person "Muhariban bi'Ilah wa Rasulahu fa innahu yuqtal au yuslab au yunfa," i.e. "who fights Allah and His Messenger and he will be killed or crucified or banished from the land"­ words reminiscent of verse 35 of Surat al‑Ma'idah.

(4) Two versions are traced to Hadrat `Uthman, the Third Caliph. One says: "I heard the Messenger of God (on him be peace and blessings of God) say: It is not lawful to shed the blood of a Muslim except in one out of three cases: a person who apostatizes after accepting Islam or who fornicates after marriage or one who kills a person without retaliation for murder of another (Nasa'i, Sunan: "Bab Dhikr ma yuhillu bihi dam al‑Muslim"). In the second version attributed to Hadrat Uthman, also in the same Bab in Nasa'i, the relevant words are: "Or one who commits apostasy after having believed." It is said that Hadrat `Uthman had proclaimed this tradition to the crowd that had surrounded his house in order to assassinate him.

(5) Somewhat akin to the theme of this hadith is the one given by Abu Dawud on the authority of Jam: "When a servant of God runs away to polytheism, shed­ding of his blood becomes lawful." In the Zamindar of 8 October 1924, M. Siraj Ahmad mentions a version in­cluded in the Sunan of Nasa'i in which the relevant words are: "One who leaves the community and cuts it asunder." There are some lesser compilations of hadith which mention similar versions, but they need not be noticed.

Al‑Samara'i has discussed the tradition traced to Hadrat `Uthman in his Ahkam al‑Murtadd. [31] He quotes the. opinion of Shaukani from his Nail al‑Autar (Vol. VII, p. 7), with reference to Ibn Mas'ud's version of the hadith that the words “al‑Mafariq li'l Jama'ah" occurring there­in mean "one who separates from the Islamic commu­nity," and that, according to him, is only possible with Kufr (disbelief) and not merely by committing an offence or resorting to an innovation, etc. He adds further that this forsaking of the community "must be for joining the disbelievers' community". He also gives an extract from San'ani's al‑`Addah `ala al‑Ahkam al‑Ahkam endors­ing this view. San'ani further observes that there is difference of opinion between the Doctors of Law as to whether a woman should be killed for apostasy or not. The view receives some reinforcement from the comment of Ibn Majah in his Sunan, "Bab al‑Murtadd," to the effect that no action is to be accepted from a person who has become a polytheist after accepting Islam, until he leaves the Mushrikin (polytheists) to rejoin the Muslim community. [32]

In view of the variations in different versions of the hadith it may be legitimate to infer that some of the narrators merely recollected its general sense without preserving the verbal integrity of the hadith. As Imam Shafi'i has remarked in his al‑Risalah [33] concerning differences in reports from the Prophet, "Sometimes he (the Prophet) was questioned about something and he used to give a reply in accordance with the question; sometimes the narrator conveyed fully what he had heard and sometimes summarised, so that, on occasions, the full purport was conveyed and, on occasions, this did not happen. Sometimes, a person merely reported that part of the hadith which the Prophet had uttered as his reply, because he was himself not present when the ques­tion was asked and which occasioned the answer." With such possibilities open, an attempt to read together all these variant versions so as to get the full picture would be a process which would carry us nearer to the truth. It follows that the delinquents contemplated in the hadith are those who were not merely renegades from the faith but also in active opposition to the Muslims, having join­ed the warring disbelievers' camp. Their case would thus fall within the purview of verse 33 of Surat al‑Ma'idah and their condemnation would be in harmony with the letter as well as the spirit of the Qur'anic text. The pre­sent writer finds that this view receives corroboration from the opinion of Maulana Abu'l‑Wafa' Thana' Ullah, as has, been mentioned at the end of Section II.

Section IV

Bukhari in his Sahih has included a tradition from the mouth of Abu Musa Ash`ari. [34] It is related therein that the Prophet sent Abu Musa Ash'ari to Yemen as his Governor and, soon after, Mu'adh b. Jabal was also de­puted to go there. Abu Musa welcomed him and invited him to sit down. At that time, a Jew had been brought there, under arrest, who had at first become a Muslim but had later reverted to Judaism. Mu'adh is reported to have declined to sit down unless the apostate Jew was first killed, "in accordance with the judgment of God and His Messenger". His behest was complied with: the Jew was put to death.

Here again we are in the realm of conjecture as to the actual circumstances surrounding apostasy. It is just probable that the Jew had joined the rebel group of Aswad `Ansi in Yemen and that he was not punished for defection from the faith alone. Aswad `Ansi had set up claim to prophethood and had become an apostate in the Prophet's lifetime. The Christians of Najran had joined him and they had ousted the Prophet's two appointees to the area, `Umar b. Hazm and Khalid b. Said b. al­`As. Aswad had himself occupied San'a'. [35] This sugges­tion gains some strength from the consideration that Mu'adh had cited the authority of Allah and His Mesenger both, in support of his demand for the extreme penalty to be inflicted on the Jew. In the Qur'an, as we have seen, there is no mention of any such punishment for an apostate, but death is to be the portion of a muharib Allah (one who fights God, i.e. the Muslim com­munity). In the absence of the exact words of the Qur'an or of the Prophet that Mu'adh had in mind, the position remains equivocal and in any event this would be a very weak precedent. If it was a decision based on the per­sonal Ijtihad (opinion arrived at after considering analogous provisions of the Qur'an or the Sunnah, of Mu'adh b. Jabal, it would not be of binding value. Shah Wali Ullah in his Hujjat Allah al‑Balighah, [36] cites the opinion of `Abdullah b. 'Abbas, 'Ala', Mujahid and Imam Malik to the effect that, however eminent a personality may be, if certain statements of his are accepted, there may be some other statements attributed to him, which it would be necessary to reject. For there is no man except the Prophet whose every saying would be capable of cita­tion as a conclusive argument. Earlier [37] he expresses the categorical view that the basis of some statements ascrib­ed to Sahabah (Companions of the Prophet) is merely "forgetfulness or error". In the Mukhtasar of Sayyid al­Sharif al jurjani it is said: "Whatever is related from a Sahabi, either in the form of a saying or in the shape of action, whether narrated by a continuous chain of narra­tors or not, is not a binding instance.” [38] In the Qamar al­-Aqmar Sharh Nur al‑Anwar [39] it is laid down on the authority of Maulana` Abdal‑`Ali Bahr al‑`Ulum, that the mere possibility that a Sahabi (Companion) might have based himself on what he might have heard from the Prophet does not make it obligatory to follow his opinion.There is also the well‑known observation of Imam Shafi.`i regarding the Sahabah : "They were men and so are we.' [40] It is interesting to recall that Maulana Charagh 'Ali (Nawab A'zam Yar Jang) criticises the decision of Mu'adh as one in conflict with the Qur'anic text. [41]

What happened exactly on the occasion to which the report relates is also open to some doubt. `Aini in his ' Umdat al‑Qari gives varying versions as to whether the Jew was simply put to death or also burnt. [42]

Section V

There are two traditions concerning a woman who is said to have been killed for apostasy, by order of the Prophet. One is traced to Hadrat ` A'yeshah which places the incident on the day of Uhud and the other to Jabir b. `Abdullah, by Daraqutni and Baihaqi. In the chain of narrators pertaining to the tradition from Hadrat' `A'yeshah, there occurs the name of Muhammad b. `Abd­ul‑Malik, as the ultimate transmitter. In respect of him, al‑Zaila'i, the author of Nasb al‑Rayah li Ahadith al­Hidayah comments that Ahmad and others had described him as a fabricator of traditions. [43] The same learned writer criticizes Jabir b. Abdullah's tradition in the words [44] And `Abdullah b. Uzniyyah's testimony (he was one of the chain of narrators) has been invalidated by Ibn Habban. He says: It is not permissible to base an argument on him in this situation, and in al‑Mutalif wal‑Mukhtalif, Dara­qutni has characterised him as "one rejected". Ibn Adi has related this hadith in his al‑Kamil and commented " Abdullah b. `Atarid b. Uzniyyah is not acknowledged in respect of Hadith and I have not seen our predecessors say anything against this." Both these traditions, there­fore, are of doubtful authenticity. In any event, they are vague and indefinite formulations, furnishing no details of the woman involved. It is pertinent to advert to the fact that al‑Zaila'i [45] has also cited two other ahadith, in one of which the words ascribed to the Pro­phet are: "Do not kill the woman, if she commits apos­tasy." This too has been included in Daraqutni's com­pilation of Traditions. However, the compiler describes the principal narrator, `Abdullah b. `Isa al Jazri, as a liar. The other hadith is from al‑Kamil of Ibn `Adi, traced from Abu Hurairah, and says that a woman who became an apostate was not killed by the Prophet. This is also attacked as of weak authority. Apparently on this point, conflicting but weak traditions are not scarce.

There is one other tradition having a bearing on this subject, in which the woman has been named as Umm Marwan. She was said to have been put to death under orders of the Prophet. It is included in Daraqutni's "Collection," being traced to Jabir. The last transmitter in the chain of narrators is Ma`mar b. Bakkar who is said to be of imaginative type by `Uqaili, according to the author of Nasb al‑Rayah. [46] But even if this tradition is accepted as authentic, there is evidence available which differentiates the case from that of a mere apostate. She was actively hostile to the Muslims. Sarakhsi, in his Mabsut, [47] informs us that she partook in actual fighting against Muslims and exhorted others to join the warring group and that she had a following. It was, therefore, for her conduct as a Muharibah (an active oppositionist) that she was put to death, rather than for her change of faith. Some authorities from the school of thought which exempts female apostates from being killed have already been noticed earlier and they would serve to strengthen. the inference open on the above discussion that there is no clear warrant for holding that the Prophet had ordered the killing of a woman for apostasy simpliciter. Instances of the Prophet forbidding slaughter of women even in battle would be found summarised in al‑Samara'i's Ahkam al‑Murtadd; where the prohibition is stated to be grounded on lack of capacity of females for fighting. [48]

Section VI

The instance of `Abdullah b. Abi Sarh is also men­tioned by one Pakistani scholar [49] as lending support to his thesis that the punishment of apostasy is death. The instance, when considered in all its bearings, seems to negate that proposition. Two versions are extracted from the Sunan of Abu Dawud, "Kitab‑al‑Hudud," Bab "al‑Hukm fi man Artadda". In the first version it is said that this man took shelter with Hadrat `Uthman, on whose intercession the Prophet pardoned him. According to the second version, Hadrat `Uthman requested the Prophet three times, repeatedly, to accept his allegiance and the Prophet apparently reluctantly acceded to the request, for he later turned to his Companions and said "Was there no rightly‑guided person among you who could have risen to kill this man, seeing that I was with­holding my hand from his allegiance?" The Companions are reported to have said that they could not know what was in the mind of the Prophet unless he had himself given them an indication by a wink of his eye. The Pro­phet told them that it was not becoming a Prophet to have made such a stealthy sign with his eye.

The facts of the case are given by Tabari [50] and Ibn al‑Athir [51] in their Histories and they are also mentioned by Razi [52] in his Tafsir al‑Kabir and by Muhammad Husain Haikal in his "Life of the Prophet". [53] After accepting Islam, he used to act as one of the scribes for taking down the Qur'anic verses revealed to the Prophet from time to time. He became a renegade and joined the polytheist Quraish before whom he boasted that he used to write what was dictated to him by the Prophet as and where he liked: He was one of those under sentence of death by order of the Prophet, at the time of the Conquest of Mecca. `Abdullah was a foster‑brother of Hadrat `Uthman and that is why he gave him shelter and interceded success­fully on his behalf with the Prophet. He was under the sentence apparently for his political crime in making common cause with the enemies of the Muslims and not for mere apostasy. For if he was liable to hadd‑i‑Shara'i for that offence, it is unlikely that Hadrat `Uthman should have given him protection. The fact that he re­ceived such protection strongly suggests that his pro­claimed punishment was not with reference to his apostasy but to his association with and encouragement of polytheist belligerents.

There were actually ten or twelve persons in all who were under the sentence of death, if captured, for their oppositionist role, at that time. They were, besides Ibn Abi Sarh, `Abdullah b. Khatal,` Ikrimah b. Abi Jahl, Huwairith b. Naqid, Muqais b. Sababah, Hibar b. al­ Aswad, Ka'b b. Zuhair, Hindah bint `Utbah (wife of Abu Sufyan, who had mutilated the dead body of the Prophet's uncle Hamzah, in the Battle of Uhud), Wahshi b. Harab, Safwan b. Umayyah and `Abdullah b. Zab'ari Sahmi. They were all persons who had either persecuted the Muslims or fought against them. Wahshi had killed Hamzah by hurling his weapon at him from a distance. Ibn Khatal had become a Muslim but had run away after killing a Sahabi or, according to one version, a Muslim slave. He used to revile the Prophet in verses that were sung by his two slave‑girls ‑these girls, accord­ing to Ibn Athir, were among those under sentence of death, in absentia. Ka'b and Huwairith were also charged with similar abusive and vilifying roles. Hibar had attacked the camel carrying Hadrat Zainab, daughter of the Prophet, in collaboration with Huwairith, and the latter also attacked the camel on which two other daugh­ters of the Prophet, Hadrat Fatimah and Hadrat Umm Kulthum, were travelling and, in both cases, the riders had fallen off their mounts and received injuries. Muqais b. Sababah had become a renegade, but he was not immediately interfered with. He was killed during the Conquest of Mecca by Ghilah b. ` Abdullah Kalbi. Muqais had earlier killed an Ansari Muslim who had killed a brother of Muqais, under a misapprehension ‑khata'an­and he then had run away and defected from the Muslim community. [54] Zarqani in his Sharh Mawahib al‑Ladun­niyyah has also given their histories. [55] Some details about these persons are also furnished by Ibn Hisham in his Sirat. [56] However, only four of these persons were even­tually killed, the rest receiving pardon from the Prophet, including Wahshi, the killer of Hamzah. Their offences lay in the political rather than the religious field. It can­not be maintained, in consequence, that the case of Ibn Abi Sarh is, in any sense, an apt illustration of the liability of an apostate to the supreme penalty.

The attempt by some writers to draw strength for their contention that death is the prescribed punishment for apostasy, from the incident relating to `Ukl or `Urainah people, must also founder on the rock of differ­entiating facts. The relevant hadith is set out in Sahih Bukhai [57] Sahih Muslim. [58] It is traced from Anas. The circumstances in which these persons from `Ukl were killed have already been (referred to, while com­menting on verse 35 of Surat al‑Ma'idah, and they are detailed in several commentaries of the Qur'an, e.g. Alusi's Ruh al‑Ma'ani, Suyuti's Lubab al‑Nuqul fi Asbab al‑Nuzul, Razi's Tafsir al‑Kabir and others. They were guilty of brutal murder combined with robbery, and they were dealt with on that basis and not for apostasy alone.

Another reported hadith ascribes instructions issued by the Prophet to Mu'adh b. Jabal when he was leaving for Yemen that both male and female apostates were to be killed unless they repented. In his marginal comment on this hadith, Muhammad Hasan Sunbali, [59] in his edition of the Hidayah, has criticised this hadith as rest­ing on weak authority as its narrators are questionable.

It is claimed that a woman who was abusing the Prophet was killed by a Sahabi and the Prophet remitted her Qisas (punishment for murder). The tradition is included in the Sunan of Abu Dawud and is said to have been narrated by Ikrimah and Sha'bi. Doubt has been cast on its authenticity by criticism of Nasa'i, among others, of `Uthman al‑Shaham, one of the narrators, as a weak link. Sha'bi's version is also not accepted as authentic as, according to Hakim, he had not heard a single tradition from Hadrat 'Ali whom he had claimed as the source of information for this hadith. Apart from this aspect of the matter, however, the death of the woman was caused under circumstances of grave provo­cation offered by her to Muslims, and if the Prophet, as Head of the State, remitted the punishment, the instance cannot be put forward to buttress the conten­tion that apostasy had to be punished with death. In this connection, it would be pertinent to refer to another hadith included in Salaih Bukhayi. It is reported that a Jew, while passing by the Prophet, had said: "As‑sam‑u­`alaikum" (death on you). The Prophet merely retorted back: "Wa `alaik" (and on you). When the people around asked for permission of the Prophet to kill him, he forbade them from doing so. [60] So apparently such kind of provo­cative conduct was also to be ignored.

Section VII

As we have seen, none of the ahadith, normally relied on by the protagonists of the penalty, unequivocally support that judgment. That they should not be so construed is a suggestion that has much to commend it­self in view of what follows.

A hadith is related from Jabir b. `Abdullah in Sahih al‑Bukhari [61] by three different chains of narrators, to the effect that a Bedouin Arab accepted Islam and took the oath of fealty on the Prophet's hand. Soon after, he contracted high fever and came back to the Prophet to demand cancellation of his allegiance. He repeated this demand three times, but each time it was refused. He then went away‑apparently unmolested. The Prophet merely remarked that Medina is like a furnace which separates the dross from what is pure. If apostasy had to be visited with the death sentence, he should not have been allowed to depart with immunity. There is also discussion of this hadith in the Fath al‑Bari. [62]

Interesting light is thrown on the question we are considering by clauses (4) and (5) of the Hudaibiyyah Peace Pact, concluded between the Muslims acting through the Prophet and the polytheist Quraish of Mecca through their plenipotentiary, Suhail b. `Umar. These clauses are reproduced below: [63]

(4) If a Meccan becomes a Muslim, without the per­mission of his family chief and migrates to Medina, it will be obligatory for Muhammad to return him to Mecca.

(5) In the reverse case, if someone from Medina defects from Islam and seeks protection in Mecca the Quraish would not return him.

If the apostate Muslim was liable to the death sen­tence, it is extremely unlikely that such a provision should have been agreed to, in derogation of a Com­mandment of the Shari'ah.

Again, in the document of Aman (protection) granted to the Hadas branch of the Lakhm tribe by the Prophet [64] and scribed by `Abdullah b. Zaid, it is provided that in respect of members of the tribe who accept Islam, keep up prayer, pay the Zakat and the Prophet's share and give up friendly relations with the polytheists, the responsibility to protect their lives, their property and their honour will rest on Allah and His Messenger (i.e. on the Muslims). "But if any one of them, after becoming a Muslim, commits apostasy, then the responsibility of Allah and His Messenger will cease with regard to him, and a person who authenticates his Islam by his actions will have his faith certified by the Prophet." Nothing was said to indicate that apostasy would invite the capital sentence‑only he would lose his protective cover.

It is also possible to gain some guidance on the point in question from the dialogue that took place between Abu Sufyan (who was then a non‑Muslim) and the Ceasar of Byzantium, whom the Arabs give the name of "Herqal" (Heracles). Abu Sufyan was accompanied by his Quraish companions and one of the questions put by the King to Abu Sufyan was whether any of the followers of the Prophet was known to have become a renegade from his faith. The answer was in the negative. Here was an occasion for Abu Sufyan to have assigned this steadfast­ness to the threat of the extreme penalty for apostasy if such had been the case‑he was no friendly emissary who could suppress such a fact. The absence of such a charge is significant. [65]

When "Qiblah" for prayers was changed, by Divine Command, from Bait al‑Muqaddas to the Ka'bah at Mecca, the decision came as a shock to the Jews and even to some Muslims. The incident is referred to in the opening verses of Part II of the Qur'an and it is explained in verse 144 of Surat al‑Baqarah that the change was effected so that Allah "might know him who follows the Messenger from him who turns upon his heels". Ibn Jarir Tabari in his commentary Jami` al‑Bayan mentions that some of the Muslims had actually defected from Islam on this occasion. [66] He quotes the comment of Ibn Juraij that these apostates said: "Once it is here and another time it is here" ‑ objecting to the change of "Qiblah". There is no indication given, however, that these apos­tates were punished for their defection, nor do the relevant Qur'anic verses point to any such dispensation.

There is apparently some difference of opinion between scholars as to whether Isra' (which is mentioned in Surah Bani Isra'il) and Mi'raj (to which reference exists in Surat al‑Najm) are two separate phenomena or they both represent one single experience of the Prophet. Isra' means the night‑journey which the Prophet is said to have performed from Mecca to Jerusalem and back in one night and Mi'raj is the ascension to the Heavens and the experiences related to it. Both Ibn Hisham [67] and Ibn Athir [68] have given the Prophet's account of his experi­ences in this regard and some of the people who heard of this claim made by the Prophet turned apostates. Ibn Hisham has cited the opinion of Hasan in this context that the Qur'anic verse: "And We appointed the vision which We showed thee as an ordeal for mankind and (likewise) the Accursed Tree in the Qur'an" (Bani Isra'il, verse 61), was revealed in respect of those who became apostates on this occasion. None of the historians, how­ever, has mentioned any attempt being made to bring the offenders to book by . any pressure or punishment. Al‑Samara'i has also referred to this incident in his Ahkam al‑Murtadd [69] in an extract from the Musnad of Ahmad who mentions that these apostates were killed along with Abu Jahl (in the Battle of Badr) but evidently not sentenced to death after adjudication.

The treatment of hypocrites by the Prophet, in spite of their identity being known, has already received attention earlier during the discussion on the position of apostates under the Qur'an. A, signal instance in this connection is that of Jalas b. Suwaid b. Samit. As related by Ibn Hisham, he had lagged behind when the Prophet had proceeded with his Companions for the Expedition to Tabuk. Not only that but he gave out that "if this person (meaning the Prophet) had been right, we should have been worse than asses." This was conveyed to the Prophet, but jalas, when questioned, swore falsely that he had said nothing. [70] On this the ayah was revealed

"They swear by Allah that they said nothing (wrong), yet they did say the word of disbelief, and did disbelieve after their surrender (to Allah). And they purposed that which they could not attain, and they sought revenge only that Allah by His Messenger should enrich them of His bounty. If they repent, it will be better for then, and if they turn away Allah will afflict them with a painful doom in this world and the Hereafter, and they have no protecting friend or helper in the earth" (al­-Taubah, verse 74). He, too, in spite of his proclaimed disbelief in the word of God, was apparently not frilled for his apostasy. Indeed Ibn Ishaq is reported to have said that he, later on, repented and became a good Muslim.

Shah Wali Ullah in his Hujjat Allah al‑Balighah [71] has referred to the strange case of a person who became a Murtadd in the Prophet's time. He died and, when buried, the earth "did not accept him but threw out his dead body". Probably he had in mind a hadith included in Bukhari's al‑Sahih and traced to Anas [72] It is related there­in that a Christian became a Muslim, learnt the Surahs al‑Baqarah and Al‑i‑Imran from the Prophet and be­came one of the scribes of the revelations. He later reverted to his original faith and bragged that the Prophet knew only as much as he had written out for him. Sometime after, he died (evidently a natural death) and was buried. His dead body was seen to have been cast out of his grave the day after his burial. This time he was buried even deeper into the ground but the same strange phenomenon occurred again. The deceased's re­latives suspected that the Prophet's followers had a hand in this mysterious incident. He was again buried and this time at a much greater depth under ground. Lo! and behold! his body was found thrown out again and people were now convinced that this was not due to human action. The point of this hadith is that the man was not put to death for his apostasy which was even accompanied by grave provocation to the Muslims.

In the sixth year of the Hijrah, according to Ibn Athir, Muja'ah b. Murarah who had come as a member of a delegation from Hauzah b. `Ali, King of Yamamah, became a Muslim. He, however, went back, defected from the faith and even brought up a false accusation against the Prophet that the latter had taken Musailimah Kadhdhab as his partner. There is, however, no mention of any attempt being made to punish him. [73]

Professor Heffening, in his article on "Murtadd" in the Encyclopaedia of Islam (1932 Edition), says there are traditions according to which even the Prophet forgave apostates, and he cites Nasa'i ("Tahrim al‑Dam," Bab 14, 15), Abu Dawud ("Hudud," Bab 1), Ibn Hanbal (Vol. I, p. 247) and Tafsir Tabari (Vol. III, p. 223), in support of this view. This remark and the other positive instances of absence of action against apostates, adduced above, negate the contention of those who urge that the Prophet had determined the punishment for apostasy to be death, as a part of the religious dispensation, stricto sensu.

It has been seen that even the strongest bulwark of the orthodox view, viz. the Sunnah, when subjected to critical examination in the light of history, does not fortify the stand of those who seek to establish that a Muslim who commits apostasy must be condemned to death for his change of belief alone. In instances in which apparently such a punishment was inflicted, other factors have been found to co‑exist, which would have justified action in the interest of collective security. As against them, some positive instances of tolerance of defections from the Faith, with impunity for the rene­gades, suggest that the Prophet acted strictly in con­formity with the letter and the spirit of the Qur'an, and mere change of faith, if peaceful, cannot be visited with any punishment. The sayings of the Prophet, on which the whole edifice of orthodox reasoning is raised, in the absence of a knowledge of the surrounding circumstances, must be construed in a sense which would make them consistent with the Book of God, for it is unimaginable that the Prophet could have gone against any Qur'anic text. There is no doubt a section of `Ulama' who make the Sunnah the final arbiter in every case of seeming or real conflict with the Qur'an‑their claim is: "Al‑Sunnah qadiyah `ala'l‑Kitab" ‑ The Sunnah is the judge over the Book. This is not accepted by some of the best minds among the Muslim scholars, past or present, and such a doctrine would indeed strike an unconscionable blow at the integrity and pristine purity of the Qur'an

[1] Urdu translation by M. Amjad `Ali, pp. 97 et seq.

[2] Vol. I, pp. 118 et seq.

[3] pp. 229‑31.

[4] Urdu translation by M. 'Abdur Rahim, Vol. I, pp. 219‑28.

[5] Ibid., Vol. I, p. 655, and M. Sher 'Ali, Qatl‑i‑Murtadd our Islam, pp. 100‑1.

[6] Quoted in Fikr‑o‑Nazar, September 1971, p. 195.

[7] Al‑Zaila'i, Nasb al‑Rayah li‑Ahadith al‑Hidayah, Vol. III, Chapter "Ahkam al‑Murtaddin".

[8] Ahkam al‑Murtadd, pp. 36‑8, 211‑22.

[9] Ibid.,

[10] Ibid.,

[11] Al‑'Aini, 'Umdat al‑Qari, Vol. XIII, p. 232; al‑'Asqalani, Fath al‑Bari, Vol. II, p. 23, Vol. XIII, pp. 220‑8; and Hidayah ma' al‑Kifayah, Vol. 11, pp. 200 et seq.

[12] 3rd edn., Vol. VIII, p. 33.

[13] 5th edn., pp. 172 et seq.

[14] Vol. Il, p. 23; Vol. XII, pp. 220‑8.

[15] Vol. II, Bab "Ahkam al‑Murtaddin," pp. 200 et seq.

[16] Sarakhsi, al‑Mabsut, Vol. X, pp. 98‑124.

[17] Ibn Nujaim al‑Misri, Bahr al‑Ra'iq, Vol. V, p. 139.

[18] Fath al‑Qadir, 'al'a al‑Hidayah with 'Inayah of al‑Babarti, and marginal comments of al-Chalpi, Vol, IV, pp. 288‑9.

[19] Sharh al‑Zaila'i 'ala Kanz al‑Daqa'iq, Vol. III p. 285.

[20] See note 18.

[21] Proposed Political, Legal and Social Reforms under Muslim Rule‑A'zan al‑Kalam fi Irtiqa' al‑Islam: Urdu translation by 114. 'Abdul Haqq, pp. 86 at ssq.

[22] Ibn Hayyin, Bahr al‑Muhit, Vol. I, p. 209.

[23] Imam Malik b. Anas al‑Asbahi, Muwatta' (Egypt, 1339 n.), Part II, p. 165.

[24] Sahih al‑Bukhari, Urdu translation (with Arabic text) by S. Na'ib Husain Naqwi and M. Muhammad 'Ali, Vol. III, p. 579.

[25] Mishkat al‑Masabih, Urdu translation (with Arabic text) by S. Na'ib Husain Naqwi and M. Muhammad 'Ali, Vol. II, p. 10.

[26] pp. 202‑4.

[27] Sahih al‑Bukhari (Ashah al‑Matba'ah, Karachi), Vol. II, p.1016. ,

[28] Ibid., p. 1019.

[29] Sunan al‑Nasa'i (Mlaktabah Salafiyyah, Lahore, 1376 s.), Vol. II, pp. 161, 236.

[30] Sunan Abu Dawud (Matba'ah Mustafa Muharmmad, Cairo 1950), Vol. IV, p. 180.

[31] pp. 40‑2.

[32] Ibn Majah, Sunan, "Bab al‑Murtadd" (Matba'ah Mujtaba'i, Delhi), p. 182.

[33] Urdu translation by M. Amjad 'Ali, p. 150.

[34] Sahih al‑Bukh'ari, Bab "Hukm al‑Murtadd wa'l‑Murtaddat wa Istita­bathum" (Ashah al‑Matba'ah, Karachi), Vol. II, p. 1023.

[35] Dr M. Hamidullah, Siyasi Wathiqah‑jat (Urdu translation by M. Yahya Imam Khan Nowshehrwi, pp. 188‑9) (with reference to Tabari's History"); Da'irah‑i‑Ma`arif‑i‑Islamiyah (Urdu), Punjab University, Lahore, 1971, Vol. II, p. 768.

[36] Urdu translation by 'M. `Abdur Rahim, Vol. I, p. 677.

[37] Ibid., p. 655.

[38] As quoted by M. Sher 'Ali, in his Qatl‑i‑Murtadd aur Islam pp. 142‑3.

[39] Ibid.,

[40] Ibid.

[41] Nawab A'zam Yar Jang (M. Charagh ' Ali), Proposed Political, Legal and Social Reforms under Muslim Rule, Urdu translation: A'sam al‑Kalam fi Irtiqa' al‑Islam, by M. 'Abdul Haqq, pp. 86 et seq.

[42] Vol. XI & XII, p. 235.

[43] See Part III, Bab "Ahkam al‑Murtaddin".

[44] Ibid.

[45] Ibid.

[46] Ibid.

[47] Vol. x, pp.108‑10.

[48] Pp. 219‑20.

[49] M. Abu'l‑A'la Maududi, Murtadd Ki Saza Islam'i Qanun Men, pp. 16‑8.

[50] Urdu translation by S. Muhammad Ibrahim Nadvi, Vol. I; pp. 400 et seq.

[51] Urdu translation by M. Maqsud 'Ali Khairabadi, Vol. II, pp. 407 et seq.

[52] Vol . V, p. 527.

[53] Hayat‑i‑Muhammad (Urdu translation : Sirat al‑Rasul by Muhammad Warith K'amil), p. 526.

[54] Zarqani, Mawahib al‑Ladunniyyah, Vol. II, p. 321.

[55] Ibid.

[56] Vol. II, pp. 69‑78.

[57] Urdu translation (with Arabic text) by S. Na'ib Naqwi and Muhammad 'Ali. Vol. III, p. 587.

[58] Part I, Vol. II, Bab Hukm al‑Muharibin wa'l‑Murtaddin, p. 93.

[59] Quoted in M. Sher 'Ali, op cit., p. 172.

[60] Urdu translation (with Arabic text) by S. Na'ib Naqwi and Muammad `Ali, Vol. III, p. 598.

[61] Ibid., Vol. III, pp. 689‑91.

[62] Ibn Hajar al‑'Asqalani, Fath al‑B'ari, Vol. XIII, p. 173.

[63] Dr M. Hamidullah, op. cit., Urdu translation by M. Abu Yahya lmam Khan Nowshehrawi, p. 53.

[64] Ibid., pp. 65‑6.

[65] Ibn al‑Atbir, al‑Kamil, Urdu translation by Maqs'ud 'Ali Khairabadi, p. 344.

[66] Vol. II, p. 8.

[67] Sirat, Urdu translation by Qutb‑ud‑Din Ahmad Mahmudi, Vol. II, pp. 7 at seq.

[68] Al‑Kamil, Urdu translation by Maqsud 'Ali Khairabadi, Vol. II, pp. 64‑72.

[69] p. 35.

[70] Sirat, Urdu translation, op. cit., pp 203‑5.

[71] Urdu translation, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 822.

[72] Ra'is Ahmad Ja'fri, Talkhis al‑Bukhari (Arabic‑Urdu), p. 359.

[73] Ibn Athir, al‑Kamil, Urdu translation, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 350.