ON APOSTASY

"Kill the one who changes his religion" - this is the sound of the hadith erected to the Prophet Muhammad, which formed the basis of the medieval theological and legal norm providing for the deprivation of life for apostasy from Islam1. This hadith is also often quoted by modern rigorists who pretend to be defenders of Islam. Like their medieval predecessors, these extremists understand apostasy (ridda, irtidad)to mean apostasy. not only a change of religious affiliation, but also a departure from the "orthodox" interpretation of the dogmas of Islam or non-recognition/non-compliance with a particular practical prescription (for example, salat or salat).

Paradoxically, this hadith found a place in one translated book, which bears a very plausible title and was published under the stamp of authoritative spiritual instances of Russian Muslims - "Islam against Terrorism" (Moscow, 2003, p.141). Commenting on the appeal to this hadith/norm, the famous Russian Islamic scholar Alexander Ignatenko asks:: "Isn't this a violation of the constitutional principle of freedom of conscience?" [Ignatenko, 2004, p. 244]. This question, presumably, is purely rhetorical in nature. And in the light of the Qur'anic teaching on religious freedom described in the previous two articles, the question "Is the hadith understood in this way compatible with Qur'anic liberalism?"is no less rhetorical.

After all, the Prophet Muhammad could not contradict the Koran in any way, and the Holy Scripture, while preaching religious freedom, does not speak of taking the life of anyone who fell away from Islam. In the question of apostasy, medieval theologians made an ill-founded generalization, as they did with regard to the question of apostasy.

* For the beginning, see: East (Oriens). 2006. N 3, pp. 58-70; N 4, pp. 70-83.

1 According to Muslim jurisprudence, "a Muslim born in the faith, if he leaves it, is subject to the death penalty, and it is left to anyone to kill him"; a representative of other religions, " who has become a Muslim, but has left the faith, is given three days for repentance, during which he is admonished , but if he does not agree If you accept the Muslim religion again, you will be subject to the death penalty" [Tornau, 1991, p.470].

The prevailing opinion in medieval Muslim law is reproduced here in general correctly. However, it should be added that the Hanafis do not apply this measure of punishment to women, and many theologians consider it inapplicable if a person was forced to convert to Islam at one time. There are also those who qualify a person as an apostate only if, before departing from the faith, he publicly declared his commitment to Islam at least once after reaching the age of majority.

page 48

about the war with the infidels. For according to God's Word/Qur'an and prophetic practice/According to the Sunnah, the use of force against infidels or apostates should be purely defensive in nature, being applied only to the militant ones. It is not the rejection of Islam itself that entails punishment, but only such a refusal, which is accompanied by joining the enemies of Islam, which in modern language is called desertion or treason to the Motherland.

The Qur'an does not prescribe punishment for apostates in this life

None of the Qur'anic revelations support the verdict of death as a punishment for apostasy; on the contrary, all of them do not support it.

Most medieval theologians were not fully aware of the new (compared to the Bible), more humane and more tolerant position of the Koran towards unbelief and those who have fallen away from the faith, when religion becomes rather a personal matter of a person in his relationship with God. The Qur'anic God no longer blesses violence/war against the infidels as such, nor does He call for the extermination of all living things (including cattle) in their lands. Muslim Scripture does not authorize any tribunals or punishments for apostasy, whether it concerns dogma or worship, for only the Lord punishes crimes against the proper " rights of God "(hukuk-l-Lah).2

Yes, murder for treason is mentioned in the Qur'an, but not as a recommended measure against non-Muslims. It was the infidels who usually threatened the prophets / messengers of God with death, qualifying as apostasy the latter's calls to the true faith. "If you do not refrain, you will be stoned" (26:116), the tribesmen announced to the prophet Noah. And Abraham was warned by his own father: "Have you decided to renounce our gods?/ Indeed, if you do not stop [reviling them], I will certainly stone you" (19: 46); and later the Gentiles decided: "I will put Abraham to the fire." / In defense of our gods! "(21: 68). In response to Moses ' admonitions, Pharaoh threatened: "If you continue to worship anyone other than me as God, I will put you in prison" (26: 29), and then he ordered the sons of the followers of Moses to be put to death (7:127) and set out to destroy Moses himself (40:26). They "devised an insidious crime against Jesus" (3:54) - to put him to crucifixion. This was the fate of the last of the prophets, the founder of Islam: "[Remember, Muhammad,] the machinations of the infidels - To imprison you, kill you, or drive you out " (8: 30).

And the Koran itself, while condemning the forcible retention of people in the grip of any faith, conveys the words of the Prophet Shu'ayb, who, in response to the threat of pagan tribesmen to punish him and his followers for deviating from their religion, asked::

Will you do this even if
We don't like your faith?!

(7:88)

Stating the principle: "There is no compulsion in religion "(2: 256), God, as mentioned in the previous article, repeatedly warns the Prophet Muhammad in the Qur'an against causing any violence because of faith. Let us recall the verses: "Will you force people to convert by force? "or:" Whoever wants to believe, let him believe , but whoever does not want to believe is free to refuse" (18: 29).

Of course, Islam, like all other religions, cannot but condemn a departure from it. However, the Muslim Holy Scripture, while condemning apostates, usually

2 In contrast to the" rights of men " (huquk al'ibad), which are related, for example, to life, honor, property, etc.

page 49

he does not mention the punishment for them, and if he threatens them with punishment, he refers it exclusively to the otherworldly, future life, but not to the present, earthly one.

In the Ayats of the Meccan period, the subject of apostasy is mentioned only once, in Surah 16, according to which

Who denied God after believing in Him...
opening their heart to unbelief,
The wrath of God will fall upon them,
For them is a great punishment.

(16:106)

And all commentators agree that" great punishment " means God's punishment on the Day of Judgment. The same meaning is contained in all the subsequent verses about apostasy (there are about 10 of them), which came down in Medina, where the power of Islam was already established and the Prophet Muhammad actually became the sole ruler of the city. Punishment exclusively in the Hereafter for those who deviate from Islam is defined, in particular, in Ayat 2: 217, 3: 85-91 and 4: 137. Ayat 3: 176 instructs the Prophet:

Let not those who strive in unbelief grieve you -
It pleases God not to grant them
Share [happy] in that life,
Where is their great punishment?

And even in the last revelation on this subject, sent down at the end of the Prophet's life, there was no mention of any punishment for the apostate in this life:

O believers!
If anyone turns away from his faith,
God will reveal other people,
Loved by Him and loving Him.

(5:54)

And ayat 105 of the same Surah 5 remarks to the Muslims:

O you who believe!
You are responsible only for yourself, -
Those who deviate from the faith are not a hindrance to you,
If you're on the right track.

The following fact is also noteworthy: the Quranic threats to apostates are addressed specifically to those of them who will end their lives in disbelief (2:217; 3:91), and the repentant apostates are promised God's forgiveness (3: 89). The question is: if God gives the apostate a reprieve until the end of his life, then what kind of death penalty can we talk about? After all, the executed apostate will not repent!

These verses also clearly show how great is the distance between the Qur'anic instructions, imbued with God's mercy, and the harsh verdicts of the medieval faqihs, who gave the apostate three days to repent. The Almighty leaves the question of the term open - you can repent throughout your life.

Only for the change of faith, the Prophet did not punish anyone

Medieval theologians, who are unable to find in the Qur'an grounds for capital punishment for apostates, refer only to the prophetic tradition-the Sunnah. Let's see how correct their appeal to the Sunnah is.

First, we note that the Prophet and his followers lived in an environment of permanent confrontation - violent and sometimes bloody-with a hostile pagan environment. In such circumstances, renouncing Islam often meant joining the pagans.-

page 50

kam fighting the Muslims. And such apostates deserve to be punished (not only in that world, but also in this one!), not for returning to unbelief, but for going over to the enemy's side. Therefore, Ayat 4: 90, while allowing Muslims to fight the unbelievers who have departed from Islam, strictly warns its followers against aggressive actions and restricts them to certain limits.:

God will not give you the right [to fight those apostates],
Who joins the people,
Related to your [non-aggression]agreement,
Or who will come to you,
And in their hearts they have no desire to fight against you...
Who will stay away from you,
Without fighting you and offering peace.

And such tolerant instructions of the Holy Scripture guided the Prophet of Islam throughout his entire prophetic ministry.

In al-Bukhari's Sahih, the most authoritative body of hadith, the traditions of apostasy are divided into two chapters under the following titles:" On those who fight [against Islam] from among the infidels and apostates "and"On calling to repentance apostates and obstinate [enemies] and fighting them." These names themselves are extremely eloquent: the first indicates that we are not talking about infidels and apostates in general, but only about those who are fighting against Muslims; the second implies apostates who have joined the enemies of Islam. And all the evidence of specific cases of apostasy during the life of the Prophet confirms the conclusion that a peaceful departure from Islam was not punished in any way.

During the Meccan period of the Prophet's ministry, there were two cases of abandonment of Islam. Among the Muslims who fled to Ethiopia in the fifth year of the messenger of Muhammad, fleeing from the persecution of the Meccan pagans, were two who renounced their faith in exile and converted to Christianity - Ubaydallah ibn Jahsh [Ibn Hisham, vol. 1, pp. 223-224] and as-Sukran ibn Amr [at-Tabari, [B. G.], part 3, p. 175]. But no one ever reported any punishment to any of them.

Approximately in the tenth year of the mission, after the ascension (mi'raj) Some Muslims, not believing his story about this, renounced Islam. It is said that a revelation was later revealed about such disbelievers [Ibn Hisham, vol. 1, pp. 398-399]:

The vision We gave you,
We only gave people a trial.

(17:60)

Again, no information about the punishment that befell any of the apostates! And it is not to be supposed that this tolerance was due to the fact that in Mecca the Prophet did not yet have the power to pass judgment on anyone. For the same tolerant spirit is characteristic of the Medinah period of his ministry.

So, in Madinah, in the second year of Hijri, the qibla (direction of ritual prayer) was changed from Jerusalem to the Kaaba. According to Ayat 2: 143, this was established "solely to determine who will follow the Messenger (Muhammad) and who will turn back." Again, those who fell away from the faith were not punished in any way.

Even more eloquent is the testimony of Surah 3 concerning the Jews of Medina:

They talked among themselves:
At the beginning of the day, let's announce our faith
In what has been revealed to the followers of [Muhammad].
By the end of the day, we will recant,
So that they also may turn away from him.

(3:72)

page 51

You can't help but think: how could people who lived under the rule of Muslims dare such a plan to discredit Islam, if the Prophet punished apostasy with the death penalty?!

The quoted ayat also sheds some light on the historical circumstances of the Qur'anic revelations concerning apostasy. This was not a simple rejection of Islam or some harmless game of faith change - it was an evil plot to show that the Muslim faith is worthless. This is exactly what is meant in Ayat 4: 137, which refers to those who "believe ,then turn away, then believe again, then turn away again..." And even such malicious apostates were not persecuted in any way.

It is also reported that in the sixth year of the Hijra, the Prophet, having sufficient capabilities, did not want to enter Mecca by force, which was fraught with bloodshed. He made a truce with the Meccan pagans in the Hudaybiyyah valley (in the vicinity of Mecca), among the conditions of which was this: if any of the Quraysh go to Muhammad without the permission of the guardian, he will return it back; if any of the people of Muhammad go to the Quraysh, they are not obliged to return it [Ibn Hisham, vol. 2, pp. 317-318; B 2731; M 1783-1784]. How could a Prophet do such a thing if an apostate deserved the death penalty?!3

One version of the circumstances of the descent of Ayat 2: 256 tells how a caravan of oil merchants arrived in Medina from Syria. And it happened that in a conversation with them, two sons of a Muslim Medinan heeded the call of the caravan drivers to convert to Christianity and, when they were ready to return, followed them. Their father rushed to the Prophet to help him bring them back by force. But then the ayat came down - " There is no compulsion in religion..."[at-Tabari, 1988].

The canonical codes tell us about a Christian resident of Medina who converted to Islam, began to read Surahs 2 and 3 and write down for the Prophet [the Qur'anic revelations]. But then he returned to Christianity and said, " Muhammad knows only what I have written down for him." After some time, the apostate died and was buried (B 3617; 2781). The hadith goes on to say that the earth then disgorged his body. But something else is more important for us. This incident took place after the descent of these Surahs, i.e., when the power of Islam was firmly established in Madinah, and yet this person not only renounced Islam, but also allowed himself to use such offensive words against the Prophet, without suffering any persecution from the Prophet and the Muslims.

The same sources relate how a Bedouin came to the Prophet in Madinah and swore allegiance to Islam (bayahu ' ala al-Islam). But the next day, the Bedouin fell ill with a fever, went to the Prophet and asked to be released from his oath. Having been refused three times, he nevertheless left the city (B 1883; M 1383). According to a hadith, a Bedouin who fell ill on the day after converting to Islam attributed his misfortune to the fact of conversion and therefore decided to withdraw his oath. An unequivocal departure from the faith, which, however, was not followed by any punishment!4

3 According to one version, the Prophet, explaining his "concession" to the Quraysh, said: "Whoever wants to go to them from us, may God deliver us from him!" (M 1784). Indeed, what is the use of Islam of such insincere followers?

4 A curious note is provided in the Russian translation of al-Bukhari's Sahih: "Most commentators believe that this Bedouin asked the Prophet to release him from the obligation to move to Madinah, but did not renounce the oath of allegiance to Islam, since in such a case he would have deserved to die for apostasy" [al-Bukhari, p. 4].Bukhari, 2003, p. 335]. As can be seen from this, the advocates of capital punishment for apostasy, when confronted with evidence that clearly contradicts their opinion, do not stop at clearly distorting the meaning of the hadith.

page 52

Hadiths on the death penalty for apostates

The canonical Sunnah narrates only two cases in the life of the Prophet when he sentenced apostates to death. But both cases only demonstrate the truth of the conclusion that it is not the change of faith itself that condemns a person to the death sentence, but the criminal acts that he committed and deserved to be punished.

The first certificate refers to the sixth year of the Hijra. In Madinah, several people from the families of Ukl and Urayna of the Bajil tribe came to the Prophet and converted to Islam. The climate of Madinah adversely affected their health, and the Prophet sent them to the surrounding area to recover their health. With them he sent his shepherd and a flock of camels to share in their milk. When the Bajilites recovered, they killed the shepherd and took the flock away. When the Prophet learned of this, he sent a detachment after them, which captured the Bajilites, and they were put to death (B 4192; M 1671). It is obvious that the Bajilites were sentenced to death not because of their apostasy,but for the murder of a shepherd.

The second account, which dates from the eighth year of the Hijra, tells of three apostates who were outlawed by the Prophet during the conquest of Mecca. Two of them, Ibn Khatal and Mikyas, were executed. The third, Abdallah ibn Sada, was interceded for and pardoned. From the content of this testimony, it is clear that the suicide bombers were charged not just with apostasy, but with reuniting with pagans fighting against Muslims, in the case of the first two, aggravated by the murders they had committed. Thus, Ibn Khatal, who was sent by the Prophet from Madinah to collect alms-zakat, was angry with a Muslim servant on the way because he did not prepare food in time, and killed him [Ibn Hisham, vol.2, pp. 409-411]. Mikyas, on the other hand, had a Muslim brother who was accidentally killed by a Muslim from Madinah during one of the Prophet's campaigns. Arriving in Madinah under the guise of a Muslim, Mikyas accepted a ransom for his brother, and then treacherously committed suicide in Madinah, renouncing the faith and returning to the pagans of Mecca [Ibn Hisham, vol. 2, p. 293].

Abdallah ibn Sad did nothing of the sort. In Madinah, he served as a scribe for the Prophet, but later renounced Islam, returning to the pagans of Mecca. In refuting the divinity of the Qur'an, Abdallah gave evidence of some cases when he corrected the verses dictated to him by the Prophet, and the latter allegedly agreed with him. The future Caliph Uthman requested pardon from the Prophet for Abdallah, during whose reign that same Abdallah even became the governor of Egypt [Ibn Hisham, vol. 2, p. 409; D 2683; H 4067].

The story of Abdallah itself speaks volumes about the failure of the claim of capital punishment as God's punishment for apostasy. For everyone is well aware of another story that took place in the same days and which is usually cited as confirmation of the Prophet's integrity. A noble Quraysh woman was found guilty of theft, and her relatives began to intercede for her release from punishment (usually in such cases they cut off her hand) through the Prophet's favorite Osama. The Prophet was angry with Usama for daring to intercede for the guilty and deserving of the punishment prescribed by God. He called the Quraysh together and said to them, " Indeed, this is what destroyed the former nations. If a noble stole, he was released from punishment, and if he was a low-born person, he was punished as expected. I swear by the One in Whose right hand my soul is, even if my own daughter Fatyma went to steal, I would cut off her hand! "(B 4304; M 1688). If this is the case, then the question is: if the highest penalty is imposed by God for renouncing Islam, would the Prophet accept intercession for an apostate (the case of Abdallah ibn Sad), so resolutely refusing to reduce the punishment for a less serious crime?!

page 53

In the light of what has been said about the Qur'anic precepts and the prophetic tradition, the hadith "Kill the one who changes his religion "(even if it is considered authentic) should be understood not in its literal sense, but in a purely private, limited sense - in relation to those apostates who have gone over to the enemy. However, the medieval faqihs themselves were forced to abandon the universalist interpretation of this hadith. Otherwise, not only adult men, but also women and minor children would have to be executed for deviating from Islam. The conversion of a pagan or Christian to Islam should also be punished by death. A person who has converted, say, from Judaism to Christianity deserves such a measure. Theologians, on the other hand, believed that this hadith was not applicable in such cases.5

It is also noteworthy that the hadith about the change of faith, although it is given in the authoritative code from al-Bukhari (B 6922), is not found in the second of the two most authoritative codes ("Sahih") - from Muslim. It should be remembered that this hadith is almost the only evidence regarding this topic.

In addition, the hadith about the murder of a convert belongs to the category of "solitary" (ahad) traditions, i.e., going back to a single narrator. And many legal scholars, especially among Hanafis, do not consider such evidence to be sufficient grounds for any normative legal or dogmatic provisions.

Another circumstance makes us doubt the authenticity of the hadith. In the discussion among the companions of the Prophet about the legality of military action against members of the apostate-ridda movement that broke out in Arabia after the Prophet's death, Abu Bakr and other supporters of the use of force did not refer to this hadith, which would have been decisive in a dispute with opponents (in particular, with Umar). Apparently, at that time, the words of the hadith attributed to the Prophet were not yet in common use.

The authenticity of the hadith about the murder of a convert is disputed not only from the point of view of the content (matn), but also from the point of view of the chain of transmitters (isnad). For Ikrimah, who narrated the hadith allegedly from the words of Ibn Abbas, belonged to the radical sect of the Kharijites, and the hadith itself was intended to discredit the Caliph Ali, an opponent of the Kharijites , who supposedly put some heretics (zanadik) to the fire, although the Prophet forbade this type of punishment. Most hadith scholars considered Ikrimah's evidence unreliable. According to some traditions, when Ikrimah died, the Muslims refused to perform a funeral prayer for him.

At the same time, it is the hadith of Ikrimah, as already mentioned, that serves as the main basis for the death verdict for apostates. Sometimes a hadith from Ibn Abbas is also cited in his favor, according to which the life of a Muslim can be taken away only in three cases, one of which is "if he renounces his religion and leaves the community" (B 6878; M 1676). But this hadith should also be approached from the same point of view, since it refers to wartime, and the application of the death penalty to an apostate is not due to the change of religion itself, but to desertion/treason. It is significant that some versions of the latter hadeeth from other narrators clearly state that it refers to a person "who turned away from Islam, fighting against God and His Messenger" - this is, in particular, the version from Abu Kilaba (B 6899) and from Aisha (D 4353; H 4048).

The rigorists still have one more canonical hadith, which, however, contains only an indirect reference to the Prophet. The hadith narrates that in Ye-

5 It is true that Shafi'is, Malikis, and Hanbalis (as opposed to Hanafis and Shia Ja'faris) also spread the hadith to women, and some Shafi'is and some Hanbalis also spread it to converts from one non-Muslim denomination to another.

page 54

However, Abu Musa al-Ashari, the Prophet's deputy in one district, was visited by another of the Prophet's deputies in a neighboring district, Mu'az ibn Jabal. While not dismounting (according to another version, without sitting down), Mu'az noticed a certain prisoner with Abu Musa and, after inquiring about him, he found out that he was a Jew who converted to Islam and then returned to Judaism. "I will not dismount (sit down) until he is executed - that is the decision (qada') of God and His Messenger! " exclaimed Mu'az. And then the apostate was executed (B 4342, 6923; M 1824).

It should be noted at once that there are other versions of the hadith, according to one of which Abu Musa had been vainly seeking repentance for more than twenty days 6, and another version does not mention the provision of time for repentance, while the third version denies such provision at all (D 4355). In addition, if one version speaks of the immediate execution of the apostate, and it can be understood that Abu Musa ordered the execution of the guilty person, then another version attributes Mu'az to an attempt to persuade the apostate to repent, and only after failing to achieve repentance, Mu'az himself executed him. The existence of such different versions makes us doubt the authenticity of this hadith.

Mu'az's reference to "the decision of God and His Messenger" could only be adequate if aggravating circumstances were added to the culprit's departure from Islam. Thus, even if we accept the authenticity of the hadith and the correctness of Mu'adh, it is very likely that the apostate did something else for which he deserved a severe punishment. In addition, sources do not say whether this story occurred during the life of the Prophet or after his death, and it is not known how the Prophet himself would have reacted to the words of Mu'az.

A serious objection is also raised by the following: according to the hadith, it turns out that even such a prominent companion and deputy of the Prophet as Abu Musa, and with him all his entourage, were not aware of such a "decision of God and His Messenger"!

So even this hadeeth shows that the death sentence for apostasy was not yet confirmed in the time of the Prophet. Moreover, for many decades after the Prophet's passing, Muslims were divided in their definition of the penalty for apostasy, and there was no consensus (ijma') on this issue. This is confirmed, in particular, by the following historical facts.

According to al-Tabari, many male members of the apostasy movement (ridda) were captured by Muslims, and they were not put to death. And even the Caliph Abu Bakr himself released some of them, including U'aynah ibn Hisn [at-Tabari, [b.g.], part 4, pp. 231, 233, etc.].

It is related that Caliph Umar was informed of the conquest of a certain region. The Caliph inquired if there had been any "extraordinary incident" (mughrib), and was informed of a Muslim who had defected to the infidels and then been captured by the Muslims and executed. "Why didn't you lock him up in a house for three days, giving him a loaf of bread every day and telling him to repent? God, I wasn't there, I didn't order it, and when I was informed of it, I didn't approve!" (Malik Muwatta, hadith N 1445) also: Abu Yusuf, 2001, p. 314]. Medieval jurists ignored all the tolerant and humane pathos of Umar's words, concluding only that the apostate should be given three days to repent.

The following episode shows that the same Umar did not consider the death penalty a mandatory measure of punishment for apostasy, even if the abnegation was united with the enemies. While listening to a report about a Muslim campaign and the killing of some members of the Bakr ibn Wa'il tribe, the Caliph asked::

"What did they do?"

6 According to one version, the term is called two months [see: Abu Yusuf, 2001, p.314].

page 55

"O Commander of the faithful, they have renounced Islam and joined the pagans, and they deserve only death.

"If they had come to me alive, it would have been more pleasing to me than all the gold and silver in the Middle Kingdom!" Umar exclaimed.

"And what would you have done with them, O Lord of the faithful?"

"I would suggest that they re-enter the same gate [of Islam] from which they came. If they had agreed, I would have accepted their decision, otherwise I would have imprisoned them [al-Sanani, 1972, vol. 10, p. 166; Ibn Hazm, vol. 11, p. 221].

And here is a certificate that belongs to a later time. Once apostates were captured in one of the regions of the caliphate, and the governor sent a letter to the Caliph Umar ibn Abdal-Aziz (reigned in 717-720) asking him to explain how to deal with those culprits. And the Caliph replied: "Take the jizya from them again and let them go in peace "(as-Sanani, 1972, vol. 10, p. 166). Once again, even the caliph's deputies did not know how to deal with apostates.

Let us add that two prominent theologians of the second century of Islam, Ibrahim an-Nahi (the teacher of Hammad, the mentor of Abu Hanifa) and Sufyan al-Thawri, believed that an apostate is given a term of repentance until the end of his life (al-Sanani, 1972, vol.10, p. 166). And even in the XI century, the rigorist Ibn Hazm had to challenge in detail the opinion of those who do not recognize any punishment for apostasy [see: Ibn Hazm, [b.g.], vol.11, pp. 201-223, etc.].

Proponents of the latter opinion referred, in particular,to the facts of" apostasy " on the part of the hypocrites. 7

The Prophet's condescension to the hypocrites

The Prophet's generosity to the actions of the munafiks, such as those that medieval legal scholars clearly qualify as acts of apostasy deserving of the death penalty, serve as vivid lessons of genuine tolerance, not fully mastered by strict theologians. The list of such acts is quite long, so we will limit ourselves to just a few examples.

When the Prophet led a Muslim army to Mount Uhud to fight the pagans of Mecca, he passed through the garden of the blind Awsit Mirba ibn Qayza. The owner did not like that his garden would be trampled by the army, and he attacked the Muslims with insulting words, calling the Prophet an impostor. According to one account, Mirba swore, shaking a ball of dirt in his fist, " God knows, Muhammad, if I was sure I wouldn't hit anyone else, I would have thrown it in your face!" The companions of the Prophet rushed to kill Mirba on the spot, but the Prophet stopped them:" Do not kill him, for he is blind not only in sight, but also in soul " [Ibn Hisham, [b.g.], vol.2, p. 65].

In the sixth year of the Hijri, during one campaign, a fight broke out between the Ansarites and the Muhajirites over a watering hole. Then Khazrajit Ibn Ubayy spoke up: "How dare they raise their hands against us, these Quraysh rabble? Push us back, settling on our own land?! Indeed, it has long been said: feed your dog, and he will swallow you. By God, when we return to Madinah, the most worthy one will drive out the most insignificant one!" Then Ibn Ubayy retracted his words, but with his revelation came ayahs 1-8 of Sura 63. Nevertheless, the Prophet did not impute punishment to him, and the ardent Umar, who demanded punishment for the wrongdoer, he taught: "So that people can talk later: They say that Muhammad kills his followers?!"[Ibn Hisham, [b. g.], vol. 2, pp. 291-293; B 4900-4906; M 2584].

Hypocrites 7 (Arabic) - "hypocrites"," unbelievers " from among the Gentiles of Medina (Ausites and Khazrajites) and Jews who converted to Islam for purely selfish reasons.

page 56

Subsequently, Ibn Ubayy created many more works, for which he earned the nickname "heads of the munafiks"in Muslim literature. Despite all this, the Prophet did not cease to show him leniency, hoping that he would come to his senses. But the munafik was never destined to use it, and he died in little faith. The Prophet was asked to recite a funeral prayer over him, and he gave his consent-despite the fact that in the recently descended Sura 9 about such hypocrites as Ibn Ubayy it was said:: "Ask forgiveness for them, or do not ask, / Ask for them [even] seventy times, / God will not forgive them" (9: 80). As the Prophet stood by the body, 'Umar said," O Messenger of God, will you pray over the enemy of God? After all, this Ibn Ubayy said so and so then and then." And Umar began to recite the slanders and misdeeds of the most inveterate of the hypocrites. When Umar had finished speaking, the Prophet, with a smile on his face, said:: "Calm down, Umar! I was presented with a choice [in ayat], and I made it... If I knew that if I prayed more than seventy times and he would be forgiven, I would pray!" [Ibn Hisham, [b. g.], vol. 2, p. 552; B 4670-4672; M 2274].

The Tabuk campaign, which took place in the ninth year of the Hijri, includes several stories of hypocrites, which are reflected in Sura 9. According to this sura, some "criminal people" mocked and mocked "God and His teaching (ayat), His Messenger" (9:62 - 65)8; others said "a word of disbelief "(kalimat al-kufr), " deviating from the faith "(9: 74); still others "concocted [abomination], which failed" (9:74): on the way back from Tabuk, during a night march, when the Prophet was riding on a camel on a steep cliff some hypocrites, with veils on their faces, crept up on him with the intention of pushing him into the abyss (M 2779; X 23280).

And none of these hypocrites were punished. The Prophet repeatedly showed similar generosity to other non-Munafi Muslims. Let us recall the case of Khatib ibn Baltaa. In the eighth year of the Hijri, when the Prophet was secretly making preparations to march on Mecca, Khatib sent a letter to the pagan Quraysh, informing them of the Muslims ' intentions. A warning message came down from the sky, Khatib was exposed, and some Muslims demanded to put an end to the traitor. However, the Prophet released Khatib in peace [Ibn Hisham, [b.g.], vol. 2, pp. 398-399; B 3983, 4890; M 2494).

In this condescension of the Prophet, the tolerant attitude of the Qur'an was expressed, in particular, in verses 5: 116-118. According to these revelations, in a conversation with the Almighty, Jesus categorically denied his involvement in those Christians who deified him and his mother besides God. But at the same time, in relation to those, he appealed:: "If You punish them, surely they are Your servants; but if You forgive them, surely You are All-powerful and All-wise."It is reported that the Prophet used to repeat these words of the Qur'an all night long, until morning (J 1350; N 1010). On another occasion, the Prophet announced that on the Day of Judgment, with the same words of Jesus, he would intercede for those of his followers who had departed from the true faith after his passing away (B 4625-4626; M 2860).

8 In the commentaries on these verses, as well as in Ibn Hisham (vol. 2, pp. 522-525, 551), different versions are given: al-Julyas ibn Suwayd called Muslims "worse than donkeys"; someone commented on the reciters of the Qur'an (qurra') as "the most voracious, the most deceitful, the most cowardly in battle"; on the way to Tabuk, the Prophet's camel disappeared, and the munafik Zayd ibn al-Lyasit blasphemed: "Muhammad claims that he is a prophet who receives messages from heaven, but he cannot tell where his camel is"; Wadia ibn Thabit and Muhashshin ibn Humayir began to say, causing fear to the believers: "Do you really think that the battle with the Romans is like the battle of the Arabs among themselves? By God, it's clear as day: tomorrow we're in a bind."

page 57

Ridda is an armed revolt, not a refusal of zakat

Proponents of capital punishment for apostasy often refer to the ridda ("apostasy") movement, which began in the very last months of the Prophet's life and soon after his death spread to many areas of Arabia, and which was militarily eliminated under Caliph Abu Bakr. At the same time, apostasy is seen not only in following the impostor prophets (Musaylama, al-Aswad, Sajah, Tulayha, etc.), but also in the very fact of refusing to pay zakat to the central treasury. Moreover, on this basis, they conclude that the death sentence also applies to cases of non-recognition or refusal to comply with certain religious and practical precepts of religion. This interpretation of the ridda is oversimplified, but essentially incorrect.

To begin with, the Prophet himself, with all the natural rejection of other people's claims to the prophetic rank, remained faithful to the principle of non-compulsion in religion. It is said that the Prophet told his companions about a vision that came to him - on his hands there were two gold bracelets, on which he blew, and they flew off. And the Prophet interpreted these two bracelets in the sense of two false prophets: al-Aswad and Musaylama [Ibn Hisham, vol. 2, pp. 576-577; B 4373-4374; M 2273-2274]. But the Prophet did not define any punishment for impostors. And when he met Musaylima, who arrived in Madinah with a deputation from fellow Hanafi tribesmen and demanded to be recognized as an accomplice in the prophetic mission (or, according to another version, as a successor), the Prophet categorically refused to do so, threatening him, however, not with bringing him to a human court, but to a heavenly court: "If you turn away, God will help you." it will surely amaze you." ibid.]. And in response to Musaylama's letter, where he declares himself an accomplice in his prophetic work and demands the division of his possessions in half, the Prophet, calling Musaylama an impostor, limited himself to quoting Ayat 7:125: "Truly, the land belongs to God: / He gives it as an inheritance to whomever He wills of His servants... "[Ibn Hisham, [b. g.], vol. 2, pp. 600-601]. And the Prophet did not bequeath anything to the Muslims in terms of punishing them or conducting military operations against them.

Furthermore, the Ridda movement was extremely heterogeneous, and the widespread perception of its members as having fallen away from Islam due to refusing to pay zakat, combined with following false prophets, is far from true. Without going into details, we will limit ourselves to the following remark of Ibn Hazm: "The people of Ridda were of two classes. One category was made up of those who never believed [in the Prophet], such as Musaylama and Sajah - these are the aggressors (harbiyun) who did not convert to Islam at all... The second category is those who converted to Islam, did not turn back to disbelief (lam yaqfoor), but only refused to pay zakat to Abu Bakr, so he fought them. It is possible that among the latter there were also those who completely fell away from Islam (irtadd), like those who believed in Tulayha, but we do not have reliable information about this" [Ibn Hazm, [b.g.], vol.11, p. 193]. Add to this that the impostor prophetess Sajjah was a Christian [at-Tabari, [bg], part 4, p. 239] who came to Arabia from Iraq.9

In addition, Abu Bakr only began to use force against the Ridda participants after they went to war against the Muslims.10 Some tribes living to the east of Medina even decided to capture the city and, having been rebuffed, "they attacked the city of Madinah."-

9 This is one of the evidences of external interference in the events of the Ridda, and in such interference one can see a certain motive for external actions of Muslims outside of Arabia after the end of the Ridda.

10 The information that the Prophet himself organized military actions against the participants of the Ridda is extra-canonical, and it needs further verification. But even if they turn out to be reliable, then this remark is also true in relation to them.

page 58

they turned on their own Muslims, brutally killing them." And it was then that Abu Bakr swore to avenge these Muslims [at-Tabari, [b. g.], part 4, pp. 224, 227, etc.]. A similar situation was observed in other regions of Arabia. It is obvious that the military actions of infidels and apostates (if indeed there were any), when the fate of the young Muslim state literally hung in the balance, actually closed the way to a calmer, peaceful resolution of the conflict with those who only refused to pay zakat to the Caliph.

But even if it were a conflict over zakat, it is not so much an act of non-compliance by some individuals with a particular religious precept as an act of collective disobedience to political authority that threatens the integrity of the State. And Abu Bakr, appealing to force against those who evaded paying zakat, made not so much a religious decision as a political one, which was historically justified, although in the actual religious aspect it causes controversy (let's recall at least the position of Umar), as some of Abu Bakr's actions against such a group of ridda participants are controversial. In particular, "the Hanafis and Shafi'is are unanimous in the fact that they are not subject to the status of apostates (murtadd), and unlike Abu Bakr, they do not call them apostates (ahl Ridda)" [Ibn Hazm, vol.11, p. 193]. This primarily concerns the appropriation of property and the capture of families. It is noteworthy that Umar also had a different opinion on this matter than Abu Bakr. Therefore, during his reign, he returned the captives (al-Asqalani's commentary on Hadith B 6924).

The well-known story of Ansarit Salaba ibn Khatib, which is cited in all the commentaries on the Qur'an and books on the "reasons of revelation" in connection with Ayat 9, shows that refusal to pay zakat in itself cannot be a reason for being considered an apostate, and therefore does not deserve an appropriate measure of punishment.:74-75. Salaba once asked the Prophet to beg for more wealth before God. "It is better to have a little and constantly thank God for it, than a lot that you can not cope with," the Prophet tried to reason with Salaba. But Salaba insisted, " By the One who sent you with the truth, if you ask God for a fortune for me, I will ask for what is right for everyone." Then the Prophet called out to God. So Salaba bought some sheep, and by the will of God, they became so plentiful that he spent all his time with them in the pastures, even skipping Friday prayers together. When the Prophet learned of this, he said three times:: "Poor Salaba!" And when zakat was prescribed and the collectors of zakat came to Salaba from the Prophet to accept his due share, he evaded in every possible way and finally called zakat a "tax" (jizya). After the revelation of Ayat 9:75-78, Salaba himself repeatedly came to the Prophet with zakat, but he refused to accept anything from him until his death. The Caliph Abu Bakr did not want to accept zakat from him, then Umar, and then Uthman, during whose reign Salaba died.

This story should be considered more seriously by those strict believers and extremists who accuse even those who are too lazy to perform ritual prayers of apostasy and sentence them to death. 11!

How some theologians stopped in their tracks

In discussing the issue of armed jihad against infidels above (in the previous article), we have repeatedly mentioned various kinds of" contradictions "in the legal faqihs' statements regarding the use of violence against infidels: declaring that the goal of jihad is to spread the true faith/monotheism throughout the world ("in order to prevent the use of violence against infidels").

11 In the previous article, we discussed a hadith from Ibn Umar, which is sometimes referred to by proponents of the militant interpretation of the struggle against Ridda.

page 59

all religion belonged to Allah alone/God", "that the Word of God may be above all else"), they simultaneously allow the capture of Gentiles, the collection of jizya from non-believers (with all their deviation - from the point of view of these theologians - from the Orthodox faith), including polytheists, or legitimize peace treaties, moreover indefinite, with those even without paying any tax. while theologians consider the very unbelief of others to be a reason for fighting them, they do not allow the killing of women, old men, hermit monks, and all those who do not participate in battles; and so on. 12 Such inconsistency, whether realized or not, is actually a definite step in the direction of correct behavior. a tolerant understanding of the Qur'anic / prophetic attitude regarding jihad and the use of violence in general.

In the arguments of Hanafi legal scholars regarding apostasy (leaving Islam for another religion), we find even more decisive and conscious progress in this direction. As representatives of the most liberal wing of Sunni law, they came close to a true, genuine understanding of the teachings of the Koran and the Sunnah on disbelief and apostasy, but, being held captive by the medieval mentality, with its predominantly confrontational approach to other beliefs, they only half formulated the correct conclusion in this regard.

The fact is that unlike other Sunni Fiqh traditions, which declared death a punishment for both apostates and apostates, Hanafi lawyers did not apply capital punishment to women. Justifying their point of view, they quite rightly point out that faith is a personal matter for everyone in their relationship with God, and, therefore, a person who deviates from Islam is punished not for changing his faith, but for hostility to Islam, expressed in armed action against Muslims.

Thus, the author of the well-known book "al-Hidayah", al-Marginani (d. 1197), proving the non-proliferation of the death sentence for apostates, refers to the hadith of the Prophet with a ban on killing women in battles with infidels and concludes: "This is because the original principle governing retribution [for faith or disbelief] it consists in postponing judgment until the next life, because speeding it up [i.e., applying retribution in this life] is contrary to the purpose of [God's] trial. A departure from this principle is permissible only for the sake of suppressing the existing atrocity - armed action (hirab), and this cannot be expected from a woman, since she is constitutionally incapable of it" [al-Marginani, [b.g.], vol.2, p. 165].

Commenting on this statement, another prominent Hanafi theologian, Ibn al-Humam (d. 1457), remarks: "Killing for apostasy is intended to stop the evil of armed action, but it is not a punishment for the act of disbelief itself "[Ibn al-Humam, [b. g.], vol. 6, p. 72]. This idea was expressed by al-Sarahsi (d. 1097): "Unbelief is one of the most serious crimes, but it remains between a person and the Lord, so the punishment for it is postponed until the Day of Judgment. Since an apostate is put to death precisely because of an armed action, and a woman is incapable of such action by her very constitution, she is not put to death for unbelief - neither for the initial one nor for the subsequent one" [al-Sarahsi, 1986-1987, vol. 10, p. 110].13

Unfortunately, these truly wonderful words were never brought to their logical conclusion. For, along with other types of faqihs, the same Hanafi jurists consider any man from among the infidels or renouncers of Islam to be a " military danger-

12 Moreover, based on the instructions given to the Prophet ("Leave the Turks alone as long as they don't touch you"; "Leave the Ethiopians alone as long as they don't touch you" - see hadiths D 4302, 4309; H 3176; X 22644), the jurists warned against initiating any military campaigns against the Turks (who had not yet converted to Islam) and the Ethiopians.

13 By initial (asli) disbelief is meant disbelief that precedes the acceptance of Islam, and by incoming (tari') disbelief is meant apostasy from Islam.

page 60

harbi), potentially capable of fighting against Muslims, and therefore deserving of the death penalty (unless, of course, he converts to Islam or repents). With this logic, the death sentence should be extended to all male children - because they will grow up and be able to fight the Muslims! But after all, fair legislation, not to mention God's, provides for punishment based on real facts, actions performed, and not based on potential, probabilistic acts that may take place in the future.

Further, if disbelief itself is not punishable in this life, how can any deviation from it, such as failure to perform salat, be punishable? But a significant part of Hanafis - contrary to the logic of the above statement about faith as a personal matter-agreed with representatives of other legal interpretations regarding severe penalties for violations even in the field of worship.

A number of medieval theologians, who seemed to have quite adequately understood the fundamental meaning of the principle of "non-compulsion in religion" proclaimed in Ayat 2:256, also stopped midway to a correct interpretation of the Qur'anic commandments regarding disbelief/apostasy, insisting that such a Ayat cannot be "abrogated" or "modified" (mansukh) any other ayat or hadith. Thus, the famous theologian and commentator of the Qur'an al-Suyuti (d. 1505), having collected all the "abrogated" ayats, about which the opinion of theologians is unanimous, found that there are only twenty-one such ayats [al-Suyuti, 1969, p.118]. And among the latter, there is no ayat 2:256.

Even before this, at-Tabari (d. 923) criticized those who consider Ayat 2:256 abrogated by subsequent Ayats that allow Muslims to fight infidels/infidels, because this ayat is clearly general in its precept and warning. And such ayats, he concludes, cannot be canceled. The commentator understands the words of ayat "The difference between the true path and the false path is already clearly visible "in the sense that"whoever deviates from the guidance [of the true faith], after understanding it, will have to deal with the Lord himself, who disposes of his punishment in the hereafter." However, contrary to this adequate understanding, al-Tabari, who accepted as an axiom the alleged unanimity of Muslims that the Prophet "forced" pagan Arabs and apostates to Islam, was forced to "limit"," specification " (tahsys) the scope of ayat, extending it only to Jews and Christians and representatives of other faiths, from whom it is allowed to collect jizya (at-Tabari, 1988). What consensus can there be on this issue if Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1328) and his disciple Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 1350) consider it obvious that the Prophet did not force anyone to follow Islam?

Ibn Qasir (d. 1372), who is inclined to preserve Ayat 2:256 for its universal sound, interprets the commandments of Ayat as follows: "Do not force anyone to accept the religion of Islam, for it is obvious and does not need to be forced to it... And whoever is blind in heart, whose eyes and ears are sealed, will not be helped by forced conversion to Islam "(Ibn Qasir, 1981).

In the same sense, but more categorically, Ibn Taymiyyah said, defending the literal / universal sound of ayat 2: 256:" [In Ayat, we are given a general commandment - not to force anyone to religion. If an infidel were threatened with death to become a Muslim, that would be the greatest compulsion in the religion... And no one can say that he (the Prophet) forced anyone to follow Islam... And there is no benefit from such treatment." Ka'ida...].

In the spirit of such an adequate understanding of the ayat, it would be necessary to state that there is also no benefit in forcibly detaining someone in Islam or in forcing someone to perform certain rites - a conclusion that these theologians apparently stopped at.

page 61

To complete the movement started by Hanafi faqihs and other theologians towards a truly Islamic, tolerant and liberal legislation, laid down in the Koran and Sunnah, is the task facing Muslim theological and legal thought today.

list of literature

Abu Yusuf. Kitab al-Kharaj (Muslim Taxation). St. Petersburg, 2001.

Al-Askalyani. Fatah al-Bari bi-sharh Sahih al-Bukhari. Beirut, 1990.

[Al-Bukhari]. Sahih al-Bukhari, Moscow, 2003

Ibn Kathir. Tafsir al-Qur'an al - ' azim. Beirut, 1981.

Ibn Taymiyyah. Ka'ida fi qital al-kuffar // www.alshreef.com/book.

Ibn Hazm. Al-Muhalla. Beirut: Dar al-afaq al-jadida, [b. g.].

[Ibn Hisham]. As-Sira an-nabawiyyah li-Ibn Hisham. Ed. by as-Sakka M. et al. Beirut-Jeddah, [b. g.].

Ibn al-Humam. Sharh Fatah al-Qadir. Beirut: Dar al-fikr, [b. g.].

Ignatenko A. A. Islam i politika [Islam and Politics], Moscow, 2004.

Al-Marginani. Al-Hidaya. Beirut: al-Maktaba al-islamiyya, [b. g.].

Al-Sanani, Abd al-Razzaq. Al-Musannaf. Beirut, 1972.

Al-Sarahsi. Kitab al-Mabsut. Beirut, 1406 H. [1986-1987].

At-Tabari. Jami 'al-bayan' an ta'wil ai al-Qur'an. Beirut, 1988.

At-Tabari. Tarikh al-umam wa'l-muluk. Beirut: Maktabat Hayyat, [b. g.].

Tornau N. Exposition of the principles of Muslim jurisprudence. [Reprint of the 1850 edition]. Moscow, 1991.

Permanent link to this publication: