Huzoor, as I have understood from the verses of Holy Qur’an, and especially the verse innal azeem aamanu summa kafaru summa aamanu summa kafaru summa yazdaadu kufran. I don’t see any clue that a murtad should be banalized by death. You don’t see any? Any reason, any clue that… Nor do I. No, but I… So we agree fully with that. Yes. That is there any unauthentic, authentic tradition of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam? None whatsoever. Or any, maybe some incident which happened in the life of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam? None to my knowledge. If not, then how this thing has crept into Islam?
Ask those who believe in that. Well, the only reason they forward is a chapter of Islamic history, starting from the first caliphate of course, Hazrat Abu Bakr r.a. And the other arguments they put forward in their support also belong to the Khilafat-e-Rashidah period. For instance, they also quote Hazrat Ali r.a. in their favor. There are a few odd incidents where people have been fought and killed because they rebelled. And in that process, they also declared themselves to be non-Muslims. So the historians of the later days mixed these two things and confused the issue. What happened in the first incident, at the time of Hazrat Abu Bakr s.a.w., Musalm Qazaab and his followers raised the banner of rebellion against Islam. And they did not only renegade it, but they also attacked Islamic centers.
They were preparing in large numbers to attack Medina and they already started killing the Muslims around. And this was the state of affairs, so a battle had to be fought with them. It was justified just because of the rebellion. But another element of confusion crept into it, into the situation, when Hazrat Abu Bakr s.a.w. directed the Muslim army not to fight with any village or kill any person, where they heard the sound of voice of Azan, or where they saw the mosques facing Qibla, and where they submitted and they claimed to be Muslims.
So from that they infer that perhaps the only reason they were punished was that they had renegaded. Now there are so many things to be judged and viewed before one can come to a final definite conclusion. This practice of not killing anyone who had claimed to be a Muslim was not a new practice. This was a fundamental order and instruction to every Muslim during the lifetime of Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa s.a.w. So the question of somebody having renegaded does not come into picture at all. This is an instruction for all times to come and the reason behind is not conversion of religion by compulsion, it is a different reason altogether.
The reason is that if somebody claims to be a Muslim, all his previous sins are forgiven, he is given a new spiritual life and this is a very magnanimous attitude of Islam towards the opponents, which is unfortunately used against Islam as a sign of barbarism, that they enforce their religion upon others and this is the proof. It’s exactly the other way round. What happened was that Islam claimed that you are not to judge others, but everybody must be taken according to his own word, on the face value of what he claims. And you must not interfere into other people’s thinking and what is passing within the hearts. This is not your job, this is Allah’s job.
So if somebody claims to be something, professes something, for man it is to accept and not doubt it at all. This is the fundamental principle of human rights, it’s a grand principle, which if followed even in this modern age, would rid human beings of many problems they are facing today. But keep that in mind. Now if somebody during wartime says, I have become a Muslim and you still kill him, what would be your position? That is to say, you will say, I know the circumstances in which you have accepted Islam, I doubt your sincerity, or perhaps I know that you are lying. Because if that is not the case, then you are not permitted to kill him. You follow this point?
Because if you kill him, you kill a Muslim and then the punishment for you as declared by the Holy Qur’an is everlasting hell, however long it may be, but a sort of everlasting hell. So what is the choice, to forgive or to accept hell? This is exactly the situation in Islam. It is not at all for forcing your religion upon others, or converting others by force, it is a completely different situation. I mean there is no alternative, it has to be like this. So it was like that at the time of Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq. He had to follow his master, he couldn’t invent a new Islam. So that is why he said that if somebody claims to be a Muslim, despite the fact that there is every reason we should doubt them, they once accepted Islam, then renegaded, then rebelled against Islam, attacked the Muslims, all these factors are weighed against them. Yet despite everything, I will not permit you to take the power of God into your own hands and doubt others’ professions.
What a beautiful teaching, what a beautiful practice, and how unfortunately distorted so much by the Muslims themselves. So that is the only reason they can offer, but again they do not draw the correct inferences from that situation in other respects as well. They quote so often nowadays in Pakistan that there must be some Abu Bakr reborn to slaughter all Ahmadis and wipe them out. But what Abu Bakr said, they are not following, they are rebelling against him. Hazrat Abu Bakr said if you hear the voice of Azaan, you have nothing to do with him. They say if we hear the voice of Azaan, we will kill you. What Hazrat Abu Bakr said was, if you hear somebody say I am a Muslim, have nothing to do with him. You have no right over his life, his property, his honour.
They say if you say you are a Muslim, then we have every right over your property, your life and your honour. Exactly the opposite of what he did. And this is their Islam which they are enforcing upon us.
