أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو الأَزْهَرِ، أَحْمَدُ بْنُ الأَزْهَرِ النَّيْسَابُورِيُّ قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ الرَّازِيُّ، قَالَ أَنْبَأَنَا الْمُغِيرَةُ بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ، عَنْ مَطَرٍ الْوَرَّاقِ، عَنْ نَافِعٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ، أَنَّ عُثْمَانَ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ ‏"‏ لاَ يَحِلُّ دَمُ امْرِئٍ مُسْلِمٍ إِلاَّ بِإِحْدَى ثَلاَثٍ رَجُلٌ زَنَى بَعْدَ إِحْصَانِهِ فَعَلَيْهِ الرَّجْمُ أَوْ قَتَلَ عَمْدًا فَعَلَيْهِ الْقَوَدُ أَوِ ارْتَدَّ بَعْدَ إِسْلاَمِهِ فَعَلَيْهِ الْقَتْلُ ‏"‏ ‏.‏
Translation
It was narrated that Ibn 'Abbas said

"The Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.'"

Comment

The Book of Fighting [The Prohibition of Bloodshed] - Sunan an-Nasa'i

Hadith Reference: Sunan an-Nasa'i 4062

Textual Analysis

The hadith "Whoever changes his religion, kill him" must be understood within its proper legal and historical context. The term "religion" here specifically refers to Islam, indicating one who apostatizes after embracing Islam.

Classical Juristic Understanding

According to classical scholars, this ruling applies to mature, sane Muslims who willingly renounce Islam without coercion. The punishment is not for mere doubt or struggle with faith, but for public declaration of apostasy after proper investigation and opportunity for repentance.

Scholars like Imam Abu Hanifah distinguished between male and female apostates, prescribing the death penalty only for males while females were imprisoned until they returned to Islam.

Conditions and Safeguards

Traditional jurists established numerous conditions: the apostate must be given time for reflection and repentance, the ruling must come from a legitimate Islamic judge, and there must be clear evidence of intentional apostasy without external pressure.

The purpose is to protect the religious community and maintain social order, not to compel belief, as the Quran states: "There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256).

Modern Application

Contemporary scholars emphasize that this ruling was implemented in a specific historical context where religious identity was intertwined with political loyalty. Many modern jurists argue that in today's pluralistic societies, different legal approaches may be more appropriate while maintaining the principle of protecting religious sanctity.