Daily Mail Australia has just reported on Hizb ut-Tahrir’s Uthman Badar confirmation of support for the killing of apostates from Islam. Last Saturday, Badar was asked by freelance journalist Alison Bevege about Hizb ut-Tahrir’s policy of killing apostates, as detailed within the group’s draft constitution published on their UK site (which was on the group’s Australian website until 2015).
Per the video, Badar replied to Bevege and others present:
The constitution [Hizb ut-Tahrir’s draft constitution] is based on Islamic sources and the whole thing covers different aspects of the Islamic or the Sharia law. The ruling of apostasy in Islam is clear, again that’s one of the things the West doesn’t like, and seeks to change the ruling of apostasy. As such in Islam it is clear that apostates do attract capital punishment and we don’t shy away from that.
The sad reality is that Badar is correct: Islam’s foundational texts, including the Koran (versus such as 2:217 and 4:89), the hadith and the sharia, allow for the killing of Muslims who leave Islam.
As contained in one of the most canonical hadith, Sahih al-Bukhari (bold emphasis mine):
Narrated by ‘Abdullah: Allah’s Apostle said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17)
Narrated by ‘Ikrima: Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to ‘Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn ‘Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57)
In addition, as contained in one of the other most reliable hadith, Sahih Muslim (bold emphasis mine):
Abdullah (b. Mas’ud) reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: It is not permissible to take the life of a Muslim who bears testimony (to the fact that there is none worthy of worship (in truth) but Allah, and I am the Messenger of Allah, but in one of the three cases: the married adulterer, a life for life, and the deserter of his Din (Islam), abandoning the community.
(Sahih Muslim, Chapter 6: WHEN IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO TAKE THE LIFE OF A MUSLIM, Book 016, Number 4152)
The apostasy law is also stated in ‘Umdat al-Salik (‘The Reliance of the Traveller’), a manual of Islamic law compiled in the 14th century. In the chapter on “Justice”, it elucidates on “Apostasy from Islam (Ridda)” (bold emphasis mine):
Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst….When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. In such a case, it is obligatory…to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.
(‘Umdat al-Salik, O8.0, 8.1, 8.2)
Interestingly, this is still the position of all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, both Sunni and Shi’ite. Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the most renowned and prominent Muslim cleric in the world, has stated (bold emphasis mine):
The Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-Ithna-‘ashriyyah, Al-Ja’fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that apostates must be executed.
As detailed in a recent post, Hizb ut-Tahrir’s booklet – The Methodology of Hizb ut-Tahrir for Change – outlines how they plan to bring about the change in favour of the Khilafah (i.e. the Caliphate). From page 30 of the booklet (bold emphasis mine):
As a consequence the party commits itself with openness, daring, clarity and challenge to any thing which contradicts Islam; whether it is other religions, ideologies, creeds, thoughts, concepts, systems, habits or traditions. This is even if it means the party exposes itself to the anger of the people who follow these thoughts, and even if they decide to struggle against the party. So when it comes to the question of Islam, the party will not flatter anybody, and will not tell the people of non-Islamic creeds, religions, ideologies and thoughts to remain as they are; rather it asks them to leave what they are following, because it is Kufr (disbelief), and to accept Islam because it is the only correct ideology. The party therefore, considers all religions other than Islam like Judaism, Christianity; and all ideologies, like Communism, Socialism and Capitalism as Kufr religions and Kufr ideologies; and it considers the Jews and Christians as kuffar (disbelievers), and whoever believes in Capitalism, Socialism or Communism as a Kafir (unbeliever). The party considers that calling for nationalism, patriotism, localism or sectarianism are matters which are all prohibited by Islam. It also considers that it is haram to establish parties which call for Capitalism, Socialism, secularism, Communism, Freemasonry, nationalism, patriotism or sectarianism or any religion other than Islam, or to participate in or join any of these parties.
There is one good thing about Hizb ut-Tahrir: they openly state their totalitarian ambitions to subjugate non-Muslims under Islam. And Badar is honest as to how apostates should be dealt with, which is in accordance with canonical Islamic texts and the sharia. Hizb ut-Tahrir are following what these command. And they are propagating these ideas in Sydney, Australia.
Last month, Muslim activist Yassmin Abdel-Magied sought feedback from Hizb ut-Tahrir after her appearance on Q&A where she declared “Islam is the most feminist religion” and “praying five times a day is sharia”.
Under sharia, the punishment for apostates from Islam is death. What does Miss Abdel-Magied think of that? Is she going to be honest with herself and admit this punishment is rooted in Islam’s texts and the sharia?
Furthermore, how could she even associate herself with this organisation in the first place, given their clear rejection of the freedom of speech and freedom of conscience?