Apostasy

The Ruling on ‘Apostasy’ – حكم المرتد

The Qur’an states:
لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ
“There is no compulsion in religion.”
[Qur’an 2:256].

The Prophet said:
من بدل دينه فاقتلوه
“Whoever changes his religion xecute him.”
[“Sunan Ibn Majah”, 2535 – صحيح].

What is actually going on here?

Answer:

Let’s get this straight:

The addressee (المخاطب) here is not every Tom, Dick and Harry sitting at home. It is directed at the legitimate Muslim ruler of a Muslim country with a court of law. It is aimed at the government. Nobody is allowed to take the law into their own hands. This is not a Hadd to begin with, but even the Hudood cannot be applied by rogue rebels or vigilante mobs:

اتفق الفقهاء على أنه لا يقيمُ الحدَّ إلا الإمام أو نائبه

This is agreed upon by all scholars.

Now that part is understood – how do we reconcile these texts?

The Qur’an is very clear that there is no compulsion in religion. Freedom of Belief (حرية الاعتقاد) is emphasized continnously throughout the Qur’an. Nobody can be forced to believe.

The classical Hanafi jurists argued:

The punishment for apostasy in these Ahadith are interlinked with warfare, defection, treason and political alliances – and not merely with the act of disbelieving. [القتل بالردة أن يكون لدفع شر حرابه لا جزاء على فعل الكفر]. That’s why the female apostates are not to be killed according to Hanafis, but only the men who are capable of waging war:

1- Imam al-Kasani Hanafi said:
والقتل ليس من لوازم الردة عندنا فان المرتدة لا تقتل بلا خلاف بين أصحابنا
“The capital punishment is not necessarily associated with apostasy according to us (Hanafis), because a female apostate is not to be killed. There is no dispute about this issue among our companions.”
[“Bada’i al-Sana’i”, 7/134].

2- Imam al-Mawsili Hanafi said:
وإنما لا يقتل لأن كل من لا يباح قتله بالكفر الأصلي لا يباح بالردة لأن إباحة القتل بناء على أهلية الحراب على ما عرف
“Anyone who is not allowed to be killed because of the original disbelief is also not to be killed for apostasy. The reason why the [male] apostate is prescribed to be killed is because of his capability to wage war.”
[“Al-Ikhtiyar li Ta’lil al-Mukhtar”, 182].

3- Imam al-Sarakhsi Hanafi said:
وأصل الكفر من أعظم الجنايات ولكنها بين العبد وبين ربه فالجزاء عليها مؤخر إلي دار الجزاء وما عجل في الدنيا سياسات مشروعة لمصالح تعود إلى العباد كالقصاص لصيانة النفوس وحد الزنا لصيانة الأنساب والفرش وحد السرقة لصيانة الأموال وحد القذف لصيانة الاعراض وحد الخمر لصيانة العقول وبالاصرار على الكفر يكون محاربا للمسلمين فيقتل لدفع المحاربة إلا أن الله تعالى نص علي العلة في بعض المواضع بقوله تعالى فان قاتلوكم فاقتلوهم وعلى السبب الداعي إلى العلة في بعض المواضع وهو الشرك فإذا ثبت أن القتل باعتبار المحاربة وليس للمرأة بنية صالحة للمحاربة فلا تقتل في الكفر الأصلي ولا في الكفر الطارئ ولكنها تحبس
“The act of disbelief is one of the greatest offenses, but it is between the servant and his Lord. Retribution for this crime is postponed until the person reaches the place of retribution (hereafter). As for what happens in this world, laws are ordained for the good of people. The law of retaliation (qisaas) was intended to save lives. The punishment for adultery was for the protection of the family. The punishment for theft was for the protection of wealth. The punishment for drinking alcohol was for the protection of intellect. The punishment for slandering was for the protection of others dignity. He who stands firm in disbelief is the one fighting the Muslims. The capital punishment is to prevent war from him. It is established that the capital punishment is due to war. The capital punishment is not applied on women, because she is naturally not a combatant.”
[“Al-Mabsoot”, 10/110].

4- Imam al-Marghinani Hanafi said:
ولنا أن النبي عليه الصلاة و السلام نهى عن قتل النساء ولأن الأصل تأخير الأجزية إلى دار الآخرة إذ تعجيلها يخل بمعنى الابتلاء وإنما عدل عنه دفعا لشر ناجز وهو الحراب ولا يتوجه ذلك من النساء لعدم صلاحية البنية بخلاف الرجل
“This [punishment is applied on men] to neutralise their harm, which is [potential] warfare. This is not the case with women, because her physical body is not built for fighting, contrary to men.”
[“Al-Hidayah”, 1/406].

5- Imam Ibn Humam al-Hanafi said:
وكل جزاء شرع في هذه الدار ما هو إلا لمصالح تعود إلينا في هذه الدار كالقصاص وحد القذف والشرب والزنا والسرقة شرعت لحفظ النفوس والأعراض والعقول والأنساب والأموال ، فكذا يجب في القتل بالردة أن يكون لدفع شر حرابه لا جزاء على فعل الكفر ; لأن جزاءه أعظم من ذلك عند الله تعالى ، فيختص بمن يتأتى منه الحراب وهو الرجل ، ولهذا { نهى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم عن قتل النساء } ، وعلله بأنها لم تكن تقاتل على ما صح من الحديث فيما تقدم ; ولهذا قلنا : لو كانت المرتدة ذات رأي وتبع تقتل لا لردتها بل ; لأنها حينئذ تسعى في الأرض بالفساد ، وإنما حبست ( لأنها امتنعت عن أداء حق الله تعالى بعد أن أقرت به فتحبس كما في حقوق العباد ) .
“It is necessary to kill for apostasy to avert the evil of war, not as punishment for the act of disbelief. Because the greatest punishment for that is with Allah. This (the punishment of killing) is for those who come with war, and that is the man. This is because the Prophet prohibited killing women, and the reason is because they do not fight. Because of this (reasoning) we say: If a woman apostate has an opinion and a following (for the sake of war), then she is killed. Not for her apostasy, but because she was spreading corruption in the earth. However, (the female apostate) is imprisoned, because she has refrained from performing the right of God after accepting it, like one is imprisoned for (violating) the rights of others.”
[“Fath al-Qadir”, 6/72].

This is not some baseless modernist readings, these are classical Hanafi jurists!!

Rasheed Rida agrees with the Ahnaaf:
المرتد من مشركي العرب كان يعود إلى محاربة المسلمين، وأن بعض اليهود كان يصد الناس عن الإسلام بإظهار الدخول فيه، ثم بإظهار الارتداد عنه ليقبل قوله بالطعن فيه، وذكرنا ما حكاه الله عنهم في هذا، وقلنا: فالظاهر أن الأمر في الحديث بقتل المرتد كان لمنع المشركين وكيد الماكرين من اليهود، فهو لأسباب قضت بها سياسة ذلك العصر التي تسمى في عرف أهل عصرنا سياسة عرفية عسكرية لا لاضطهاد بعض الناس في دينهم، ألم تر أن بعض المسلمين أرادوا أن يكرهوا أولادهم المتهودين على الإسلام، فمنعهم النبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم – بوحي من الله عن ذلك، حتى عند جلاء بني النضير، والإسلام في أوج قوته، وفي ذلك نزلت آية: {لا إكراه في الدين} (البقرة: 256)
“The apostate of the Arab polytheists would return to fighting the Muslims and harming them, so the legality of killing him is clearer than the legality of fighting all the polytheists who oppose Islam.
And some Yahood used to repel people from Islam by announcing their entry into Islam, and then by announcing their departure from it. So it was revealed: “A group among the People of the Book said ˹to one another˺, “Believe in what has been revealed to the believers in the morning and reject it in the evening, so they may abandon their faith.” [Qur’an 3:72].
That is why this threat [of capital punishment for apostates] was made, so they would turn away from this plot of theirs.
What seems to be the case is that the order to kill the apostate was to prevent the evil of the polytheists and the plots of the Yahood.
This was a demand of the political situation at that time, which we nowadays call a martial law policy.
It was not to prosecute people in their religion.
Don’t you realise that some Muslims tried to forcibly convert their Jewish children to Islam and the Prophet stopped them from doing this? This was at the time when Islam was at its peak strength.
This is when it was revealed: “There is no compulsion in religion.” [Qur’an 2:256].
[“Mujalat al-Manar”, 10/285].

The Qur’an repeatedly emphasized the freedom of belief:

1. The Qur’an states:
لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ
“There is no compulsion in religion.” [2:256].

2. The Qur’an states:
فَمَن شَآءَ فَلْيُؤْمِن وَمَن شَآءَ فَلْيَكْفُرْ
“Whoever wills—let him believe. And whoever wills—let him disbelieve.” [18:29].

3. The Qur’an states:
‏وَلَوْ شَآءَ رَبُّكَ لَءَامَنَ مَن فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ كُلُّهُمْ جَمِيعًا ۚ أَفَأَنتَ تُكْرِهُ ٱلنَّاسَ حَتَّىٰ يَكُونُوا۟ مُؤْمِنِينَ
“If your Lord willed, all men and women on earth would have believed. Would you compel people to believe?” [10:99].

4. The Qur’an states:
‏لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِىَ دِينِ ‎
“To you be your religion, and to me my religion.” [109:6].

5. The Qur’an states:
فَإِنَّمَا عَلَيْكَ ٱلْبَلَغُ وَعَلَيْنَا ٱلْحِسَابُ
“Your only responsibility is to deliver the message. Ours is to deliver the reckoning.” [13:40].

These are very clear non-ambiguous verses. The Prophet was a walking manifestation of the Qur’an – he would not contradict the Qur’an!

Many jurists within the madhabs argued that these verses only apply to non-Muslims before they convert to Islam – after they convert, there is compulsion according to them.

However, we can see that the Prophet linked apostasy with armed resistance in some narrations:

1- The Prophet said:
لاَ يَحِلُّ قَتْلُ مُسْلِمٍ إِلاَّ فِي إِحْدَى ثَلاَثِ خِصَالٍ زَانٍ مُحْصَنٍ فَيُرْجَمُ وَرَجُلٌ يَقْتُلُ مُسْلِمًا مُتَعَمِّدًا وَرَجُلٌ يَخْرُجُ مِنَ الإِسْلاَمِ فَيُحَارِبُ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ وَرَسُولَهُ فَيُقْتَلُ أَوْ يُصَلَّبُ أَوْ يُنْفَى مِنَ الأَرْضِ ‏
“It is not permissible to kill a Muslim except in one of three cases: A adulterer who has been married, who is to be stoned; a man who kills a Muslim deliberately; and a man who leaves Islam WAGING WAR against Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, and His Messenger, who is to be killed, crucified or banished from the land.”
[“Sunan Nasai”, 4743- صحيح].
https://sunnah.com/nasai:4743

2- According to another wording:
اَ يَحِلُّ دَمُ امْرِئٍ مُسْلِمٍ يَشْهَدُ أَنْ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ إِلاَّ بِإِحْدَى ثَلاَثٍ رَجُلٌ زَنَى بَعْدَ إِحْصَانٍ فَإِنَّهُ يُرْجَمُ وَرَجُلٌ خَرَجَ مُحَارِبًا لِلَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ فَإِنَّهُ يُقْتَلُ أَوْ يُصْلَبُ أَوْ يُنْفَى مِنَ الأَرْضِ أَوْ يَقْتُلُ نَفْسًا فَيُقْتَلُ بِهَا ‏
“… the one who GOES FORTH TO FIGHT with Allah and His Apostle, in which case he should be killed or crucified or exiled from the land…”
[“Sunan Abu Dawud”, 4353 – صحيح].
https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4353

3- According to another wording:
اَ يَحِلُّ دَمُ امْرِئٍ مُسْلِمٍ يَشْهَدُ أَنْ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ وَأَنِّي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ إِلاَّ بِإِحْدَى ثَلاَثٍ النَّفْسُ بِالنَّفْسِ وَالثَّيِّبُ الزَّانِي، وَالْمَارِقُ مِنَ الدِّينِ التَّارِكُ الْجَمَاعَةَ
“…and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and LEAVES THE MUSLIMS.”
[“Sahih Bukhari”, 6878 – صحيح].
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6878

That is how the societies operated in those days. There was no clear separation between civilian and military, like there is today. Any mature man would take up arms in defence of his tribe and people. That is why even the Hanafi jurists ruled that the capital punishment should be applied to the apostate males in their time.

As for today – the military and civilians are clearly separate.

But even in those ancient times, not all scholars agreed on the capital punishment for apostasy. The opinion of Imam Ibrahim Nakha’ii and Imam Sufyan al-Thawri is that the apostates are not to be killed, but they can repent anytime.

Abdul-Razaaq narrates:
عَنِ الثَّوْرِيِّ عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ قَيْسٍ عَنِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ قَالَ فِي الْمُرْتَدِّ يُسْتَتَابُ أَبَدًا قَالَ سُفْيَانُ هَذَا الَّذِي نَأْخُذُ بِهِ
Ibraheem An-Nakha’ee said about the apostate: “He is continuously given the opportunity to repent (forever).”
Sufyan At-Thawri then said, “This is what we also act upon.”
[“Al-Musannaf”, 18084].

Thawri & Nakhai’ were major classical Sunni scholars, but their schools went extinct.

An important question:

Is the ruling on apostasy a Hadd (الحد) or Ta’zir (التعزير)?

The correct scholarly opinion seems to be that the punishment of apostasy is not a Hadd (الحد) fixed penalty but that it is indeed a Ta’zir (التعزير) disciplinary penalty.

The evidence for this is as follows:

Nobody can intercede when it comes to the Hudood:

A lady committed theft, so Usama bin Zaid tried to intercede for her, so the punishment gets removed for her. The Prophet became angry and said to Usama:
أَتُكَلِّمُنِي فِي حَدٍّ مِنْ حُدُودِ اللَّهِ
“Do you intercede with me in a matter involving one of the legal punishments prescribed by Allah?!”
[“Sahih Bukhari”, 4304 – صحيح].
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4304

But the Prophet accepted the intercession of Uthman for an apostate:

1- It has been narrated:
انَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ سَعْدِ بْنِ أَبِي سَرْحٍ يَكْتُبُ لِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَأَزَلَّهُ الشَّيْطَانُ فَلَحِقَ بِالْكُفَّارِ فَأَمَرَ بِهِ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَنْ يُقْتَلَ يَوْمَ الْفَتْحِ فَاسْتَجَارَ لَهُ عُثْمَانُ بْنُ عَفَّانَ فَأَجَارَهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم
“Abdullah ibn AbuSarh used to write (the revelation) for the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). Satan made him slip, and he joined the infidels. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) commanded to kill him on the day of Conquest (of Mecca). Uthman ibn Affan sought protection for him. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) gave him protection.”
[“Abu Dawud”, 4358 – حسن الإسناد].
https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4358
If it was a Hadd, it would not have been accepted (ولو كان حداً، فلا شفاعة في حدود الله).

2- It has also been narrated:
جَاءَ أَعْرَابِيٌّ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَبَايَعَهُ عَلَى الإِسْلاَمِ، فَجَاءَ مِنَ الْغَدِ مَحْمُومًا، فَقَالَ أَقِلْنِي، فَأَبَى ثَلاَثَ مِرَارٍ، فَقَالَ ‏ “‏ الْمَدِينَةُ كَالْكِيرِ، تَنْفِي خَبَثَهَا، وَيَنْصَعُ طَيِّبُهَا ‏”‏‏.‏
“A bedouin came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and gave a pledge of allegiance for embracing Islam. The next day he came with fever and said (to the Prophet (ﷺ) ), “Please cancel my pledge (of embracing Islam and of emigrating to Medina).” The Prophet (ﷺ) refused (that request) three times [the man left] and the Prophet said, “Medina is like a furnace, it expels out the impurities (bad persons) and selects the good ones and makes them perfect.”
[“Sahih Bukhari”, 1883 – صحيح].
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:1883
NOTE: He wanted to leave Islam.
Ibn Hajar said:
ظاهره أنه سأل الإقالة من الإسلام
“The apparent meaning is that he wanted to leave Islam.”
[“Fath Al-Bari”, 4/97].
Imam Nawawi said:
قال العلماء : إنما لم يقله النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بيعته لأنه ؛ لأنه لا يجوز لمن أسلم أن يترك الإسلام
“The scholars have said: The Prophet did not accept his request because it is not permissible for a Muslim to leave Islam.”
[“Sharh Sahih Muslim”, 9/155].
The Prophet refused his request, but he let this apostate go.
Some have interpreted it to mean he didn’t want to migrate only, but the allegiance he wanted to cancel was actually for embracing Islam.

3- It was a condition in the Hudaibiyah treaty:
‏ فَاشْتَرَطُوا عَلَى النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَنَّ مَنْ جَاءَ مِنْكُمْ لَمْ نَرُدَّهُ عَلَيْكُمْ وَمَنْ جَاءَكُمْ مِنَّا رَدَدْتُمُوهُ عَلَيْنَا فَقَالُوا يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَنَكْتُبُ هَذَا قَالَ ‏”‏ نَعَمْ إِنَّهُ مَنْ ذَهَبَ مِنَّا إِلَيْهِمْ فَأَبْعَدَهُ اللَّ
They laid the condition on the Prophet (ﷺ) that anyone who joined them from the Muslims, the Meccans would not return him, and anyone who joined you (the Muslims) from them, you would send him back to them. The Companions said: Messenger of Allah, should we write this? He said: Yes. One who goes away from us to join them-may Allah keep him away!”
[“Sahih Muslim”, 1784 – صحيح].
https://sunnah.com/muslim:1784
[NOTE: This is about apostates, as scholars said:
( من ذهب منا إليهم فأبعده الله ) أي : من رحمته بأنه مرتد
“The Prophet’s words: “The one who goes away from us to join them-may Allah keep him away”, means: may Allah keep him away from His mercy, because he is an apostate.”
[“Mirqat al-Mafatih”, 6/2621].
So according to the Hudaibiyah treaty, the Prophet agreed to let apostates go.

4- It has been narrated:
بعثني أبو موسى بفتح تستر إلى عمر رضي الله عنه فسألني عمر وكان ستة نفر من بني بكر بن وائل قد ارتدوا عن الإسلام ولحقوا بالمشركين فقال: ما فعل النفر من بكر بن وائل؟ قال: فأخذت في حديث آخر لأشغله عنهم فقال: ما فعل النفر من بكر بن وائل؟ قلت: يا أمير المؤمنين قوم ارتدوا عن الإسلام ولحقوا بالمشركين ما سبيلهم إلا القتل فقال عمر: لأن أكون أخذتهم سلما أحب إلي مما طلعت عليه الشمس من صفراء أو بيضاء قال: قلت: يا أمير المؤمنين وما كنت صانعا بهم لو أخذتهم؟ قال: كنت عارضا عليهم الباب الذي خرجوا منه أن يدخلوا فيه فإن فعلوا ذلك قبلت منهم وإلا استودعتهم السجن
Musa sent me with the news of entering Tastir to `Umar. As six people from (the tribe) of Bakr ibn Wa’il had apostatized from Islam, `Umar asked me, “What has been done with the six people from Bakr ibn Wa’il who apostatized from Islam?” I tried to divert his attention to something else, but he again said, ”What has been done with the people from Bakr ibn Wa’il?” I said, “O Commander of the Faithful, they are people who became apostates and joined the polytheists. Was there an alternative to putting them to death?” `Umar commented, “Had they been handed over to me, this would have been the most beloved thing to me on the earth.” Anas wondered, “And what would you have done with them?” `Umar replied, “I would have asked them to return to Islam, and had they refused, I would have imprisoned them.”
[“Musannaf Abdur-Razaq”, 18696 – إسناده صحيح].
NOTE: Ibn Hazm said:
ومنهم من قال: بالاستتابة أبدا وايداع السجن فقط كما قد صح عن عمر
“And some of them said: They can repent at any time (without being killed), and that the person should be imprisoned ONLY as it is authenticated from Omar.”
[“Al-Muhalla”, 6/56].

5- It has also been narrated:
عَنْ مَعْمَرٍ قَالَ أَخْبَرَنِي قَوْمٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْجَزِيرَةِ أَنَّ قَوْمًا أَسْلَمُوا ثُمَّ لَمْ يَمْكُثُوا إِلا قَلِيلا حَتَّى ارْتَدُّوا فَكَتَبَ فِيهِمْ مَيْمُونُ بْنُ مِهْرَانَ إِلَى عُمَرَ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ فَكَتَبَ إِلَيْهِ عُمَرُ أَنْ رُدَّ عَلَيْهِمُ الْجِزْيَةَ وَدَعْهُمْ
“Ma’mar reported: Some residents of the peninsula told me that some people embraced Islam but they did not remain in it very long until they committed apostasy. Maymun ibn Mihran wrote to Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz regarding them and Umar wrote back saying, “Let them return to paying tribute and leave them alone.”
[“Musannaf Abdur-Razaq”, 18102].

And secondly: the punishment of apostasy drops if someone repents. The Hudood don’t drop with repentance.

This proofs that it is Ta’zir, not a Hadd.

Conclusion:

The final ruling will differ by country, with time and per case – because there are different types of apostasy.

For instance, the Prophet said even about the combatant apostates:
وَرَجُلٌ يَخْرُجُ مِنَ الإِسْلاَمِ فَيُحَارِبُ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ وَرَسُولَهُ فَيُقْتَلُ أَوْ يُصَلَّبُ أَوْ يُنْفَى مِنَ الأَرْضِ
“…and a man who leaves Islam WAGING WAR against Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, and His Messenger, who is to be:
– Killed,
– OR crucified,
– OR banished from the land.”
[“Sunan Nasai”, 4743- صحيح].
https://sunnah.com/nasai:4743

This seems to give the ruler a range of OPTIONS when it comes to dealing with apostates.

Imam al-Shawkani said:
وظاهر الحديث والآية أيضا أن الامام مخير بين هذه العقوبات في كل محارب مسلما كان أو كافرا
“What is apparent from this Hadith and the Quranic verse is that the Imam (muslim ruler) can choose between any of these punishments, when it comes to the combatant enemies, whether they are Muslim or Kafir.”
[“Subul al-Salam”, 3/232].

Removing the apostates from the land by revoking their citizenship is ONE of these options.

So: capital punishment is not the ONLY option!

Based on these evidences:

If the apostate is not a threat – harming nobody but himself – the government might enact a law that specifies a lesser punishment as a deterrent – like a prison sentence.

As this is Ta’zir, it is not binding. A legitimate Muslim governments could even suspend this ruling altogether – if the harms outweigh the benefits.

If the apostasy is linked with treason, or if it is a threat to the society and the apostate wages war against the State and their faith: the official Muslim ruler or government might create a law that stipulates the capital punishment.

Or the country may make a law that takes away this type of harmful apostate’s citizenship, i.e. expelling the harmful apostate to another country.

And because the punishment itself is Ta’ziri, the official Muslim ruler can decide what is in the best interest of the society.

Imam al-Juwaini said:
والتعزيرات مفوضة إلى رأي الإمام. فإن رأى التجاوز والصفح تكرماً، فعل، ولا معترض عليه، فيما عمل. وإن رأى إقامة التعزير تأديباً وتهذيباً، فرأيه المتبع، وفي العفو والإقالة متسع
“Ta’zir (punishments) should be according to the ruler’s discretion. If he sees that forgiveness is better than punishment then, he may do so and there is nothing wrong with it. If he thinks that punishment is more appropriate then he may suggest certain punishments.”
[“Ghiyath al-Umam”, 218].

In summary:

Apostasy is disbelief and leads to eternal damnation in the hereafter, but it is between the person and their Lord.

The worldly punishment for apostasy is not a punishment for their disbelief, but to prevent war (يكون لدفع شر حرابه لا جزاء على فعل الكفر).

The punishment for apostasy can vary depending on the type of apostasy:

– Capital punishment (acting on the main hadith: من بدل دينه فاقتلوه),

– Exile (acting on the second hadith: أو ينفوا من الأرض),

– Lesser punishment like Prison (as this is not a Hadd, it is Ta’zir: والتعزيرات مفوضة إلى رأي الإمام and Omar acted this way).

– No Punishment at all (as the Prophet let some apostates go: المدينة كالكير تنفي خبثها ، وينصع طيبها and he accepted the protection of Uthman after the apostasy of Abdullah ibn AbuSarh: فاستجار له عثمان بن عفان ، فأجاره رسول الله)

All these options are available. The government can decide on this, as Shawkani said: أن الامام مخير بين هذه العقوبات

The capital punishment is not the only option, as some people mistakenly believe. The religion needs to be taken as a whole. We cannot pick and choose:

أفتؤمنون ببعض الكتاب وتكفرون ببعض ?

Take the religion as a whole.

One thing is certain: there is no compulsion in religion.

Allaahu A’alam