93says “changes,” which would imply entering as well
as leaving Islam. The hadith doesn’t literally say
“kill whoever leaves Islam to follow any other reli-
gion.” The issue arises here with the synonymous
meanings for the Arabic word din (persuasion or
religion). That’s why some jurists took the view that
this hadith cannot possibly be addressing apostasy.
This group of jurists then put this solitary hadith
into context with the Qur’an and took the view that
it contradicts the explicit prohibition against forced
conversions: “There is no compulsion in religion.”
Therefore din could not have been intended to
mean “religion” in the hadith. It may instead have
been referring to changing persuasion to a po liti cal
order—in other words, treason. This was evidenced
by the example of the fi rst caliph, Abu Bakr, who
immediately after the Prophet’s death fought in the
Wars of “Apostasy,” other wise known as the Wars
of Rebellion, against treacherous tribes. Some
Hanafi s argued that this solitary hadith was really
addressing the obligation to fi ght those who at-
tempt military insurrection from within an ex-
isting authority, or the obligation of citizens to
fi ght in a civil war context. Of course, I’m not ar-
guing that all Hanafi jurisprudence be held up
today as a model of virtue. Much of it is rooted in
Bereitgestellt von | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services
Angemeldet