REVISITING LAW OF APOSTASY IN ISLAMIC LAW
Open accessAbstract
There are various verses from Al-Quran that speak about freedom of beliefs. However, none of them instruct the believers to exercise mandatory death penalty on apostate. There are few Prophetic Traditions that have been used as the basis to form the mandatory death penalty by four major schools of jurisprudence. The need to revisit this issue is supported by a handful of modern Islamic scholars such as Sheikh Dr. Muhammad Sa’id Ramadhan al-Bouthi, Dr. Thoriq Suwaidan, Dr. Adnan Ibrahim among others. This paper does not intend to undermine the previous works of our past great scholars but this came as a form of enriching the intellectual discourse in the sphere of Islamic Law and Studies. The authors affirm that there is no strong argument or evidence to support mandatory death penalty on apostate.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Traditionalist interpretations prioritise textual fidelity and juristic consensus (ijmā'), perceiving apostasy as both theological betrayal and political offence.
“By contrast, traditionalist interpretations continue to prioritise textual fidelity and juristic consensus (ijmā'), perceiving apostasy as both theological betrayal and political offence.”
From APOSTASY PUNISHMENT IN ISLAMIC SCHOLARLY DISCOURSE: PERSPECTIVES AND IMPLICATIONS IN THE MALAYSIAN CONTEXT (2025) · cites this paper as Nik Wajis, 2018
The Abstract says four major schools of jurisprudence used Prophetic Traditions to support a mandatory death penalty, and the section on Abdullah Bin Sa’ad Bin Abi Sarhi describes a particular penalty as a political response to treachery. But the paper does not say traditionalists prioritise ijmā’, nor does it present political offence as their general understanding of apostasy; it distinguishes treachery from apostasy alone. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe traditionalist perspective underscores ijmā' as a decisive source of law, citing the consensus of early Islamic jurists on the death penalty, particularly for adult male apostates, as evidence of its enduring validity.
“This perspective often underscores ijmā' as a decisive source of law, citing the consensus of early Islamic jurists on the death penalty, particularly for adult male apostates, as evidence of its enduring validity (Nik Wajis, 2018).”
From APOSTASY PUNISHMENT IN ISLAMIC SCHOLARLY DISCOURSE: PERSPECTIVES AND IMPLICATIONS IN THE MALAYSIAN CONTEXT (2025) · cites this paper as Nik Wajis, 2018
The Abstract and “C. Dalil (proof) in regards of apostasy punishment” say that the four major schools of jurisprudence used hadith to establish a fixed death penalty for apostasy. They do not identify ijmā' or a consensus of early jurists as the decisive source, or specify adult male apostates. The authors also conclude that the evidence does not support a mandatory death penalty for apostasy in general (Abstract; “C. The apostasy of Abdullah Bin Sa'ad Bin Abi Sarhi”; pages unavailable). (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredRecent scholarship has begun to critically re-examine traditional interpretations, questioning the direct textual basis for severe penalties in the Qur'an, which predominantly emphasises divine retribution in the afterlife rather than temporal punishments for apostasy.
“However, recent scholarship has begun to critically re-examine these interpretations, questioning the direct textual basis for such severe penalties in the Qurʾān, which predominantly emphasises divine retribution in the afterlife rather than temporal punishments for apostasy (Baker, 2018;Nik Wajis, 2018).”
From APOSTASY PUNISHMENT IN ISLAMIC SCHOLARLY DISCOURSE: PERSPECTIVES AND IMPLICATIONS IN THE MALAYSIAN CONTEXT (2025) · cites this paper as Nik Wajis, 2018
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Musa, R., Razali, K., Mohamad Fakhrulrozi, A. S., Ali, M. S., Zulkifli, M. F., & Mohammad Nasir, N. S. (2025) · Malaysian Journal of Syariah and Law · doi:10.33102/mjsl.vol13no3.755
- Authors
- Nik Wajis, N. R.
- Venue
- Malaysian Journal of Syariah and Law
- Publisher
- Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia
- Published
- 2018-11-29
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 25-39
- ISSN
- 1985-7454 (ISSN-L)
- 2590-4396
- OpenAlex
- W4316917337
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 1.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- dx.doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc
- Locations
- Malaysian Journal of Syariah and Law (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Malaysian Journal of Syariah and Law (cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Qur’anic Interpretation Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Islamic Thought and Society Studies
- Social Sciences › Law › Religious Freedom and Discrimination
- Keywords
- apostasy, Islamic law, death penalty, freedom of belief, Quran, hadith, Islamic jurisprudence
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
