Tag: Q n A

Praise be to Allah.I.
The Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) – even though they are the best of people – were also human, and there occurred among them that which usually occurs among people of disputes and differences of opinion. But they were the swiftest of people in doing good, and they were the foremost in knowledge of the truth, acting upon it and the swiftest to acknowledge and correct their mistakes, if one of them made a mistake, like any other human.
What is required of anyone who is accountable is to refrain from discussing the differences that arose among the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) and to think positively of every one of them.
Where could you find any people who are better than those who accompanied the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), migrated with him, strove with him in jihad, and prayed behind him?
See the answer to question no. 127028.
II.
It was narrated by ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmad in as-Sunnah (1312), Ibn Abi ‘Aasim in as-Sunnah (1219) and al-Bayhaqi in al-I‘tiqaad (p. 358) that ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib said: No one gives me precedence over Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) but I shall flog him with the hadd punishment of one who fabricates lies.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
It is proven via many isnads from ‘Ali that he said: No man will be brought to me who gives me precedence over Abu Bakr and ‘Umar but I shall flog him with the hadd punishment of one who fabricates lies.
End quote from Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (4/479).
He also said:
It was narrated from ‘Ali via approximately eighty isnaads or more that he said on the minbar of Kufah: The best of this ummah after its Prophet are Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.
End quote from Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (4/407).
III.
It is proven in as-Saheehayn that ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib swore allegiance to Abu Bakr, even though it was delayed by a few months.
‘Ali did not show any disagreement towards Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) or express any disapproval of the caliphate of Abu Bakr, and never expressed any dissent. Rather he delayed giving his allegiance to Abu Bakr. The reason for that was that he objected to Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and others among the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) deciding the matter of the caliphate without him, despite his virtue, honour and high status, for he had the right to be present and be consulted about the matter, and that no decision should be taken without him.
The excuse that the Sahaabah gave was that they had hastened to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr so as to ward off fitnah and turmoil in the Muslim community, because they feared that disputes and conflicts might arise if they delayed it.
Another reason for the delay [in ‘Ali swearing allegiance to Abu Bakr] was the fact that Faatimah (may Allah be pleased with her) got angry with Abu Bakr’s response to her when she asked him about her inheritance (from the Prophet(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)], and ‘Ali thought that he should show sympathy to her by staying away from Abu Bakr, especially since she was going through sorrow, distress and grief at the passing of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him).
‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) did not refuse to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him); rather he delayed doing so for the reasons mentioned above. Then he came and swore allegiance to him without being forced to do so.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) said:
It is known via tawaatur reports that no one held back from swearing allegiance to him – namely Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq (may Allah be pleased with him) – except Sa‘d ibn ‘Ubaadah. As for ‘Ali and Banu Haashim, all of them swore allegiance to him, according to consensus, and none of them died until after swearing allegiance to him. But it was said that ‘Ali delayed swearing allegiance to him for six months, or that he swore allegiance to him on the second day. Whatever the case, they swore allegiance to him without being forced to do so.
End quote from Minhaaj as-Sunnah (8/232).
See also the answer to question no. 147540.
IV.
It is not proven that ‘Uthmaan beat ‘Ammaar (may Allah be pleased with them both), let alone that ‘Ali saw that and did not object. All of the reports that have been narrated concerning that are not sound in their isnaads (chains of narration).
Ibn Shabbah said in Taareekh al-Madinah (3/1098):
Al-Qaasim ibn al-Fudayl told us: ‘Amr ibn Murrah told me, from Saalim ibn Abi’l-Ja‘d, who said: ‘Uthmaan (may Allah be pleased with him) called some of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), among whom was ‘Ammar, and said: I am going to ask you something; I adjure you by Allah, do you know that the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) used to give precedence to Quraysh over all other people, and he used to give precedence to Banu Haashim over the rest of Quraysh? The people remained silent, so he said: If the keys of Paradise were in my hand, I would give them to Banu Umayyah so that all of them, to the last man, would enter it. By Allah, I would surely give to them and appoint them (to positions of authority), in spite of you. ‘Ammar said: Inspite of me? ‘Uthmaan said: In spite of you. ‘Ammaar said: And in spite of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar? ‘Uthmaan (may Allah be pleased with him) got angry and leapt up, and started to beat him severely, and the people intervened and pushed him away from ‘Ammaar.
 This is a da‘eef (weak) isnad. Saalim ibn Abi’l-Ja‘d did not hear [reports] from ‘Uthmaan. Al-Haafiz al-‘Alaa’i (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Saalim ibn Abi’l-Ja‘d al-Kufi is well known; he narrated many mursal reports from the senior Sahaabah such as ‘Umar, ‘Ali, ‘Aa’ishah, Ibn Mas‘ood and others (may Allah be pleased with them). Abu Zar‘ah said: [Reports narrated by] Saalim ibn Abi’l-Ja‘d from ‘Umar, ‘Uthmaan and ‘Ali are mursal.
End quote from Jaami‘ at-Tahseel (p. 179)
Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi said in al-‘Aqd al-Fareed (5/57):
In a hadith narrated by al-A‘mash from Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah, he said: The companions of ‘Uthmaan wrote down his mistakes on a page and wrote down people’s criticisms of him. They said: Who will take this to him? ‘Ammaar said: I will. So he took it to him, and when he read it he [‘Uthmaan] said: May Allah cause your disgrace. ‘Ammaar said: And Abu Bakr and ‘Umar too? ‘Uthmaan stood up and beat him until he fell unconscious. Then ‘Uthmaan regretted it, and he sent Talhah and az-Zubayr to him to say to him: Choose one of three: either forgive me, or accept compensation for the injury, or retaliate in kind [qisas]. ‘Ammaar said: By Allah, I will not accept any of them until I meet Allah! Abu Bakr [ibn Abi Shaybah, the narrator of this report] said: I mentioned this hadith to al-Hasan ibn Saalih, and he said: ‘Uthmaan could not have done more than he did (to seek reconciliation).
This is a da‘eef (weak) isnad, like the previous report. Al-A‘mash is regarded as being among the junior Taabi‘een; he was born too late to have met ‘Uthmaan or ‘Ali or ‘Ammaar.
See: Mizaan al-I‘tidaal (2/224) and at-Tahdheeb (4/196).
In fact, Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi, who quoted this report in his book, did not trace its isnad back to al-A‘mash. As it is possible that this report may be traced to someone who comes before al-A‘mash [in the chain of narration], it is also possible that it may be traced to someone who comes after him,  whom Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi omitted between Ibn Abi Shaybah and al-A‘mash.
Ibn Abi Bakr al-Maaliqi said: If it is said that ‘Uthmaan (may Allah be pleased with him) beat ‘Ammaar, it should be pointed out that this is not proven. Even if it could be proven, the imam (ruler) has the right to discipline some of his subjects, as he sees fit, even if he is mistaken.
Do you not see that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) allowed people to settle scores with him. Similarly, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) disciplined some of their subjects slapping and hitting with a stick, and they allowed others to settle the score with them.
If someone says that ‘Uthmaan did not allow anyone to settle a score with him,
It should be said to him: How can that be true, when he made offers to that effect in an unprecedented manner, especially when he was under siege in his house, when he said: O people, if you find in the Book of Allah that you should put my feet in fetters, then do so.”
End quote from Shubuhaat hawla as-Sahaabah: Dhu’n-Noorayn ‘Uthmaan (p. 144).
There are sounder reports which contradict that. It was narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah in his Musannaf (7/521) and Ibn Shabbah in Taareekh al-Madinah (3/1101), via Husayn ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan who said: Juhaym, a man from Banu Fihr, told me: I witnessed this event. He said: Sa‘d and ‘Ammaar came and sent word to ‘Uthmaan, saying: Please come; we want to remind you of something novel that you introduced, or things that you did. He sent word to them telling them: Leave for today, because I am busy; your appointment is on such and such a day.
So Sa‘d left, but ‘Ammaar refused to leave.
So ‘Uthmaan’s messenger grabbed him and beat him.
When they and those who were with them gathered at the appointed time, ‘Uthmaan said to them: What grievances do you have against me?
They said: Our grievance is your beating of ‘Ammaar.
‘Uthmaan said: Sa‘d and ‘Ammaar came, and I sent word to them, then Sa‘d left but ‘Ammaar refused to leave, so a messenger grabbed him and beat without me instructing him to do that. By Allah, I did not give any instruction to that effect and I am not pleased with it. This is my hand for ‘Ammaar; let him retaliate.
There is nothing wrong with this isnad, and its men are thiqaat (trustworthy). Juhaym is a Taabi‘i from whom two trustworthy narrators narrated, and he was classed as trustworthy by Ibn Hibbaan, so his hadith may reach the level of hasan.
This report is the soundest of those that were narrated about ‘Uthmaan beating ‘Ammaar.
Conclusion:
It is not proven that ‘Uthmaan beat ‘Ammaar in the first place, let alone any notion that he beat him in the presence of ‘Ali and that ‘Ali remained silent and did not defend him. What is required of us is to acknowledge the high status of the companions of our Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), to love them and defend them.
It is not permissible to rely on everything that has been narrated in the books of history, except for that which is proven to be sound. How good are the words of Ibn Khaldoon:
How often the historians, mufassireen and narrators of reports make mistakes in the stories they narrate, because their method is mere transmission of reports, whether sound or unsound, without examining these reports and their chains of narration, and comparing them to other, similar reports, and without examining them in the light of reason and in the light of human nature. Thus they drifted away from the path of truth and fell into grievous mistakes and errors.
And Allah knows best.

Praise be to Allah.With regard to laws promulgated in non-Muslim countries, one of the following three scenarios must apply:
1.
The laws are contrary to what Allah has prescribed, such as giving the wife the power of divorce, or not giving the father guardianship over his daughter after she reaches puberty, or giving a daughter the same share of the estate as a son, allowing the drinking of alcohol and zina (sex outside of marriage), and so on. It is not permissible to act upon these laws or approve of them.
2.
The laws are in accordance with what is mentioned in Islamic teachings. In this case, one should abide by them, in obedience to Allah and His Messenger.
3.
The Islamic texts have not said anything about the laws, but they are in the best interests of people, such as laws having to do with driving and the age at which driving is allowed. These laws must be adhered to, in accordance with the religious texts which enjoin being faithful to contracts and covenants, such as the verse in which Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): “O you who believe! Fulfill (your) obligations” [al-Maa’idah 5:1] and the words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him): “Muslims are bound by their conditions, except a condition that forbids something permissible or permits something forbidden.” Abu ‘Eesa [at-Tirmidhi] said: This is a hasan saheeh hadith. It was classed as saheeh by Shaykh al-Albaani (may Allah have mercy on him) in Saheeh Ibn Maajah (2353).
And Allah knows best.

Praise be to Allah.

Firstly: 

Democracy is not an Arabic word. Rather it is derived from the Greek, and it
is a composite of two words: demos, meaning the masses or the people,
and kratia, meaning rule. So what is meant is the rule of the masses
or the rule of the people. 

Secondly: 

Democracy is a system that is contrary to Islam, because it gives the power
of legislation to the people or to those who represent them (such as members
of Parliament). Based on that, in democracy legislative authority is given
to someone other than Allah, may He be exalted; rather it is given to the
people and their deputies, and what matters is not their consensus but the
majority. Thus what the majority agree upon becomes laws that are binding on
the nation, even if it is contrary to common sense, religious teaching or
reason. In these systems legislation has been promulgated allowing abortion,
same-sex marriage and usurious interest (riba); the rulings of sharee‘ah
have been abolished; and fornication/adultery and the drinking of alcohol
are permitted. In fact this system is at war with Islam and its followers. 

Allah, may He be exalted, has told us in the His Book that legislative
authority belongs to Him alone, and that He is the wisest of those who issue
rulings and judge. He has forbidden the association of anyone with Him in
His authority, and no one is better than Him in ruling. 

Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“So
the judgement is only with Allah, the Most High, the Most Great!”

[Ghaafir
40:12]

“The
command (or the judgement) is for none but Allah. He has commanded that you
worship none but Him (i.e. His Monotheism), that is the (true) straight
religion, but most men know not”

[Yoosuf
12:40]

“Is
not Allah the Best of judges?”

[at-Teen 95:8]

“Say:
‘Allah knows best how long they stayed. With Him is (the knowledge of) the
unseen of the heavens and the earth. How clearly He sees, and hears
(everything)! They have no Walee (Helper, Disposer of affairs, Protector,
etc.) other than Him, and He makes none to share in His Decision and His
Rule’”

[al-Kahf
18:26]

“Do
they then seek the judgement of (the Days of) Ignorance? And who is better
in judgement than Allah for a people who have firm Faith?”

[al-Maa’idah
5:50]. 

Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, is the Creator of all things and He
knows what is good for them and what is in their best interests of rulings.
Human beings vary in intellect, attitude and customs, and they are unaware
of what is best for them, let alone what is best for others. Hence in
societies that are ruled by the people in terms of legislation and laws, one
sees only corruption, immorality and disintegration of the social fabric. 

It
should be noted that in many countries this system has changed into
something that has no reality behind it, and it is mere slogans by which
people are deceived; in fact the real ruler is the head of state and his
helpers, and the people are suppressed and have no say in anything. 

There
is nothing more indicative of that than the fact that when this democracy
produces results that do not suit the desires of the rulers, they crush it
underfoot. Cases of election fraud, suppression of freedoms and silencing of
the voices of those who speak the truth are well known to everyone and do
not need further proof. 

This
is very clear in many countries and does not need any proof. 

It
says in Mawsoo‘ah al-Adyaan wa’l-Madhaahib al-Mu‘aasirah (2/1066): 

Representative democracy: 

This
is one of the democratic systems in which the people exercise authority
through a council of elected representatives of the people. In this system
the people retain the right to exercise some aspects of authority directly
by various means, the most important of which are: 

1.

The right to propose laws, which is done when a number of
people propse a law in general terms or in detail, which the parliament will
then discuss and vote upon.

2.

The right to a referendum, whereby a law that has already
been approved by Parliament is presented to the people so that they can have
their say.

3.

The right of objection, whereby a number of voters defined by
the Constitution have the right to object to a law within a certain period
after it has been passed, which will result in taking the matter to the
people for a general referendum; if the people agree with it, it will be
promulgated, otherwise it will be annulled. This is included in most modern
constitutions.

Undoubtedly democratic systems are one of the modern forms of shirk, in
terms of obedience and submission, or in legislation, as it disregards the
authority of the Creator, may He be glorified and exalted, and His absolute
right of legislation, and regards that as one of the rights of created
beings. But Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“You
do not worship besides Him but only names which you have named (forged), you
and your fathers, for which Allah has sent down no authority. The command
(or the judgement) is for none but Allah. He has commanded that you worship
none but Him (i.e. His Monotheism), that is the (true) straight religion,
but most men know not.”

[Yoosuf
12:40]

“Say
(O Muhammad SAW): “I am on clear proof from my Lord (Islamic Monotheism),
but you deny (the truth that has come to me from Allah). I have not gotten
what you are asking for impatiently (the torment). The decision is only for
Allah, He declares the truth, and He is the Best of judges.”

[al-An ‘aam 6:57].

End
quote. 

Thirdly: 

Many
people think that the word democracy means freedom! But this is incorrect
because freedom is one of the by-products of democracy. What we mean by
freedom here is freedom of belief, freedom of decadence, and freedom of
expression, and these also have many negative impacts on Muslim societies,
because matters have gone so far that aspersions are cast upon the
Messengers and the messages, and upon the Qur’an and the Sahaabah, on the
grounds of freedom of opinion; and wanton display and uncovering are
tolerated, and indecent images and movies are propagated on the grounds of
freedom. Many such things are happening, of which there is a long list, all
of which are playing a part in the corruption of the ummah, morally and
spiritually. 

Even
that freedom for which countries are calling by means of democratic systems
is not absolute. We see whims and desires, and vested interests, behind the
limitations on those freedoms. At the time when their systems tolerate
aspersions upon the Prophet Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon
him) and the Qur’an, on the grounds of freedom of expression, we find that
this freedom is denied when speaking about matters such as the “Nazi
Holocaust of the Jews”! In fact anyone who denies this Holocaust is treated
as a criminal and put in prison, even though it is a historical matter that
may be denied. 

If
these people really are promoting freedom, then why do they not let the
Muslim peoples choose their own path and religion? Why did they colonize
their lands and play a role in changing their religion and beliefs? What do
these freedoms have to do with Italy’s slaughter of the Libyan people, or
with France’s slaughter of the Algerian people, or with Britain’s slaughter
of the Egyptian people, or with America’s slaughter of the Afghan and Iraqi
peoples? 

According to those who promote it, freedom may be subject to several
restrictions, including the following: 

1.

The law. Man does not have absolute freedom to drive in the
opposite direction to traffic in the street, or to open a shop without a
license, and if he says “I am free,” no one will pay any attention to him.

2.

Custom. A woman in their countries – for example – cannot go
to offer condolences to the bereaved wearing a bathing suit. If she says “I
am free”, the people will look down on her and throw her out, because it is
contrary to custom.

3.

Public taste. One of them – for example – cannot eat and pass
wind in front of people, or even burp! The people will look down on him even
if he says, “I am free.”

Furthermore, we say: 

Why
shouldn’t our religion restrict our freedom, as their freedom is restricted
by things that they cannot deny? Undoubtedly what is taught by Islam is that
which is in people’s best interests. If a woman is forbidden to make a
wanton display, or if the people are forbidden to drink alcohol and eat
pork, and so on, all of that is in their best interests, physically and
mentally, and for their general welfare. But they refused to restrict their
freedom if the injunction comes from religion, but they say “we hear and we
obey” if it comes from human beings like them or from a (man-made) law. 

Fourthly: 

Some
people think that the word democracy is equivalent to shoora (consultation)
in Islam! This is a mistaken notion for many reasons, including the
following: 

1.

Shoora has to do with new matters that arise or with matters
that are not explained in detail in the texts of the Qur’an or Sunnah. With
regard to the “rule of the people”, the people may discuss what is
well-established in religion, which may lead to refusing to acknowldge the
prohibitions on that which is forbidden, and to forbidding that which Allah
has permitted or made obligatory. So the sale of alcohol is permitted
according to these laws, as are fornication/adultery and riba (usury), but
these laws put pressures on Islamic organizations and the activities of
those who call people to Allah. This is diametrically opposed to sharee‘ah,
so what does this have to do with shoora?

2.

The majlis ash-shoora (consultative committee) is to be
formed of people who have a deep knowledge of fiqh, Islam and sharee‘ah,
fahm, and have a high level of piety and good character. So no one who is of
bad character or foolish, or is a disbeliever or atheist, is to be consulted
or involved in the shoora process. As for the democratic councils of
representatives, they pay no attention to any of the con ditions mentioned
above. The representative may be a disbeliever, or of bad character or
foolish. What does this have to do with shoora as prescribed in Islam?

3.

Shoora is not binding upon the ruler; the ruler may give
precedence to the view of one member of the council that is supported by
proof, and prefer his view over that of the other council members, whereas
in the case of representative democracy, the agreement of the majority
becomes legally binding upon the people.

Once
this is known, then what the Muslims must do is be proud of their religion
and trust that the rulings of the Lord are best for them in this world and
in the Hereafter, and they should disavow systems that go against the laws
of Allah. 

What
all other Muslims must do – rulers and ruled alike – is adhere to the laws
of Allah, may He be exalted, in all their affairs. It is not permissible for
anyone to follow a system or methodology other than Islam. One of the
indications of their acceptance of Allah as their Lord, Islam as their
religion, and Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) as their
Prophet and Messenger, is that the Muslims adhere to Islam outwardly and
inwardly; they respect the laws of Allah and follow the Sunnah of the
Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). 

We
ask Allah to honour us with Islam and to cause the plots of the traitors to
fail. 

And
Allah knows best.

Praise be to Allah.We put this question to Shaykh ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn Naasir al-Barraak (may Allah preserve him) and he answered as follows: 
Dealing in hashish is an evil action according to all Islamic and rational standards. Hence it is prescribed to report such crimes, as it is also prescribed to report criminals such as murderers, thieves and rapists, so long as we are certain that dealing in hashish is an evil and harmful action. 
If the one who is dealing in hashish is a Muslim, then he is spreading corruption in the land and is also harming himself, because he is the one who is giving the disbelievers a reason to pursue him and pass judgement against him according to laws other than Islamic sharee‘ah and to subject him to a punishment other than that which Allah has revealed. As for reporting him, that comes under the heading of combatting evil and corruption. 
I have no doubts whatsoever concerning this matter. 
And Allah knows best.

Praise be to Allah.Firstly: 
The swearing of allegiance (bay‘ah) by ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him) [to Abu Bakr] is proven in as-Saheehayn (al-Bukhaari and Muslim), even though it happened a few months late. 
It was narrated from ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) that her father Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) entered upon ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him) after he requested a meeting with him:
‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib recited the Tashahhud, then he said: O Abu Bakr, we acknowledge your virtue and what Allah has given you. We do not envy you for any favour that Allah has bestowed upon you, but you did it without consulting us and we thought that we had the right (to be consulted) because of our kinship with the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). He kept speaking to Abu Bakr until Abu Bakr’s eyes filled with tears. When Abu Bakr spoke, he said: By the One in Whose hand is my soul, kinship with the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) is dearer to me than kinship with my own people. As for this dispute that occurred between me and you concerning these properties, I have not deviated from the right path with regard to them, and I have not given up something that I saw the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) do with them, rather I have done it too.
‘Ali said to Abu Bakr: Your appointment for my oath of allegiance is this afternoon. When Abu Bakr had prayed Zuhr, he ascended the minbar and recited the tashahhud, and he spoke of ‘Ali and his delay in swearing allegiance, and the excuse that he had given, then he prayed for his forgiveness. And ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib recited the tashahhud and spoke highly of Abu Bakr, and said that what he had done was not due to jealousy of Abu Bakr, or a refusal to accept the favour that Allah had bestowed upon him, but we thought that we should have had a share in the matter, but it had been decided without consulting us, and we were upset with that. The Muslims were pleased with this and said: You have done the right thing. Then the Muslims became closer to ‘Ali, when he did the right thing.
Narrated by al-Bukhaari (3998) and Muslim (1759). 
According to another version narrated by Muslim in his Saheeh:
Then ‘Ali stood up and spoke highly of Abu Bakr, and he mentioned his virtue and the fact that he had been one of the first to enter Islam. Then he went to Abu Bakr and swore allegiance to him, and the people came to ‘Ali and said: You have done the right thing, you have done well. And the people became close to ‘Ali when he did the right thing. 
An-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 
With regard to ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) delaying swearing of allegiance (to Abu Bakr), ‘Ali mentioned it in this hadith and Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) apologised to him.  
Moreover, this delay on ‘Ali’s part did not undermine the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr and it did not undermine ‘Ali himself. 
With regard to swearing allegiance, the scholars are unanimously agreed that for an oath of allegiance to be valid, it is not essential that all the people, or even all the decision-makers and prominent people, should swear allegiance. Rather there should be a group of scholars, leaders and prominent figures who do so. 
With regard to it not undermining ‘Ali or his character, that is because it was not essential for everyone to come to the leader, put his hand in his and swear allegiance to him; rather once the decision-makers and prominent figures have sworn allegiance to the leader, the individual is required to accept his leadership, not show dissent and not rebel against him. 
That was the case with ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) during that period, before he swore allegiance, because he did not show dissent towards Abu Bakr or rebel against him. But he was held back from coming to him for the reason mentioned in the hadith. In order for swearing allegiance to be valid and proper, that did not depend on him being present, and neither he nor anyone else was required to attend for that purpose. As it was not required, he did not come. 
Nothing has been narrated from him to suggest that he thought that the oath of allegiance was not valid, and he never expressed any objection (to Abu Bakr being appointed caliph). However he did have some misgivings in his mind, hence his coming was delayed until that matter had been dealt with. 
The reason for his misgivings was that, because of his high status and the fact that he himself was a person of virtue in all aspects, and was closely related to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), and so on, he thought that no decision should be made without him being consulted and being present. But the excuse given by Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and the rest of the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them all) was quite clear: it was because they thought that hastening to swear allegiance was in the greater interest of the Muslims, and they were afraid that if they delayed it, that could lead to problems and disputes that would in turn lead to serious negative consequences. Therefore they delayed burying the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) until they had sworn allegiance, because that was the most important matter, so as to ensure that no dispute would arise concerning his burial, shrouding, ghusl, funeral prayer and so on, without having anyone who could have the final say on such matters. Hence they thought that giving precedence to swearing allegiance was the most important issue at that time. End quote. 
Sharh Muslim (12/77-78) 
Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 
It was as if they excused him for not coming to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr whilst Faatimah was still alive, because he was preoccupied with caring for her during her illness, and consoling her for the grief she felt at the loss of her father (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). Moreover, when she got upset with Abu Bakr’s response when she asked him about inheritance, ‘Ali decided to go along with her in keeping away from him.
End quite. Fath al-Baari (7/494) 
Secondly: 
There is also a report which says that ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him) swore allegiance to Abu Bakr at the very beginning, and he did not delay doing so, but there is some doubt as to whether the report which mentions that can be confirmed.
The hadith was narrated via Wuhayb ibn Khaalid, from Dawood ibn Abi Hind, from Abu Nadrah, from Abu Sa‘eed. 
The hadith was taken from Wuhayb ibn Khaalid by four of his companions, three of whom narrated a brief version which does not mention ‘Ali and az-Zubayr swearing allegiance to Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) at the beginning of his caliphate. These three are: 
1.‘Affaan ibn Muslim
as we shall see the report narrated from him, and we will explain that anyone who narrated from ‘Affaan ibn Muslim concerning the issue of the oath of allegiance ( bay‘ah) was mistaken 
2.Abu Dawood at-Tayaalisi in al-Musnad (1/495, no. 603)
And it was narrated via him by Ibn ‘Asaakir in Tareekh Dimashq (19/314) 
3.Zuhayr ibn Ishaaq
who is a da‘eef narrator, as it says in Mizaan al-I‘tidaal (2/82). He narrated it via Ibn ‘Adiyy in al-Kaamil (3/223) and said: I do not know that anyone narrated it from Dawood apart from Zuhayr ibn Ishaaq and Wuhayb. Zuhayr has some strong hadiths, and the one who narrated the most from him among the Basris was Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr al-Maqdimi. I hope that there is nothing wrong with him. Ibn Ma‘een only objected to him for an interrupted hadith, as I have mentioned. As for his hadiths that have isnaads, most of them are sound. End quote. 
As for the fourth narrator from Wuhayb ibn Khaalid, he narrated a lengthy version which mentions ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib and az-Zubayr swearing allegiance to Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with them all).
This narrator was al-Mugheerah ibn Salamah Abu Hishaam al-Makhzoomi, who was trustworthy, as it says in Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (10/261). Imam al-Bayhaqi narrated it from him in as-Sunan al-Kubra (8/143) and said: 
Abu’l-Hasan ‘Ali ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al-Haafiz al-Isfaraa’eeni said:  Abu ‘Ali al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali al-Haafiz told us: Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ishaaq ibn Khuzaymah and Ibraaheem ibn Abi Taalib informed us: Bandaar ibn Bashaar told us: Abu Hishaam al-Makhzoomi told us: Wuhayb told us: and he mentioned a similar report. 
Abu ‘Ali al-Haafiz said: I heard Muhammad ibn Ishaaq ibn Khuzaymah say: 
Muslim ibn al-Hajjaaj came to me and asked me about this hadith, and I wrote it for him in a document, and read it to him, and he said: This hadith is worth a camel. I said: Worth a camel? It is worth a pearl the size of the full moon! End quote. 
The words “and he mentioned a similar report” refer to the report which mentions the oath of allegiance, as was clearly stated in the report of Ibn ‘Asaakir in Tareekh Dimashq (30/277), via Imam al-Bayhaqi himself. 
Imam adh-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) said, after quoting the report which mentions the oath of allegiance:
Although its isnaad is good, it contains some objectionable matters, so think about it. End quote. 
Al-Muhadhdhab (6/3239) 
With regard to the difference of opinion concerning ‘Affaan ibn Muslim, there follow some details concerning this matter: 
The difference of opinion concerning ‘Affaan ibn Muslim was due to two reasons: 
-1-
the first reason was that it was narrated by senior imams who had learned the brief version of the report from ‘Affaan, in which there is no mention of ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib and az-Zubayr swearing allegiance to Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with them all). The wording of this report is as follows: 
When the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) died, the spokesmen of the Ansaar stood up and some of them said: O Muhaajireen, when the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) sent a man from among you, he would pair him with a man from among us, so we think that two men should take charge of this matter, one man from among you and one man from among us. 
Zayd ibn Thaabit stood up and said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was one of the Muhaajireen, and we were the helpers of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). So the leader should only be from among the Muhaajireen, and we will be his helpers as we were the helpers of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)). 
Abu Bakr (may Allah have mercy on him) said: May Allah reward you with good, O Ansaar, and may He keep your spokesman steadfast. By Allah, if you had said something other than this, we would not have accepted it from you. 
Narrated from him by Ibn Abi Shaybah in al-Musannaf (7/430) 
And by Imam Ahmad in al-Musnad (35/489) – Mu’sasat ar-Risaalah edn. 
And by Ibn Sa ‘d in at-Tabaqaat (3/212) 
And by al-Balaadhuri in Ansaab al-Ashraaf (3/318) 
Ahmad ibn al-Qaasim ibn al-Musaawir al-Jawaahiri, as narrated by at-Tabaraani in al-Mu‘jam al-Kabeer (5/114) 
Ja‘far as-Saayigh, as narrated by Ibn ‘Adiyy in al-Kaamil (3/223). He said: ‘Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Marwaan narrated it to us: Abu’s-Saqr al-Warraaq, who is Yahya ibn Dawood al-Baghdaadi, narrated it to us, and Muhammad ibn Muneer ibn Sagheer told us: Ja‘far as-Saayigh told us: ‘Affaan told us. 
Adh-Dhahabi said concerning this report: 
This is a saheeh isnaad. End quote. 
Siyar A‘laam an-Nubala’ (2/433) 
Al-Haythami said concerning this report: 
It was narrated by at-Tabaraani and Ahmad, and its men are the men of as-Saheeh. End quote. 
Majma‘ az-Zawaa’id (5/183) 
-2-
the second reason is that it was narrated by one of the companions of ‘Affaan ibn Muslim, who narrated the longer report which mentions ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib and az-Zubayr swearing allegiance to Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq (may Allah be pleased with them all). The wording is as follows: 
When the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) died, the spokesmen of the Ansaar stood up and one of them said: O Muhaajireen, when the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) appointed a man from among you, he would pair him with a man from among us, so we think that two men should take charge of this matter, one of them from among you and the other from among us. 
And the spokesman of the Ansaar began to speak, one after another, along the same lines. 
Then Zayd ibn Thaabit (may Allah be pleased with him) stood up and said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was one of the Muhaajireen; the leader should only be from among the Muhaajireen, and we will be his helpers as we were the helpers of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). 
Abu Bakr (may Allah have mercy on him) stood up and said: May Allah reward you with good, O Ansaar, and may He keep your spokesman steadfast. Then he said: If you had done something other than this, we would not have accepted it from you. 
Then Zayd ibn Thaabit took Abu Bakr’s hand and said: This is your leader, so swear allegiance to him; so they began to swear allegiance to him. 
When Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) sat on the minbar, he looked at the faces of the people, and he did not see ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), so he asked about him, and some of the Ansaar got up and brought him. Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) said: O son of the paternal uncle of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and his son-in-law, do you want to cause division among the Muslims? 
‘Ali said: Not at all, O successor of the Messenger of Allah. And he swore allegiance to him. 
Then he did not see az-Zubayr ibn al-‘Awwaam (may Allah be pleased with him), so he asked about him and they brought him, and he said: O son of the paternal aunt of the Messenger of Allah and his disciple, do you want to cause division among the Muslims? He said the same as ‘Ali had said: Not at all, O successor of the Messenger of Allah. And they both swore allegiance to him. 
Narrated by Ja‘far ibn Muhammad ibn Shaakir from ‘Affaan in this lengthy version. It was also narrated thus by al-Haakim in al-Mustadrak (3/80), and from him and from his shaykh Abu Muhammad al-Muqri’, by al-Bayhaqi in as-Sunan al-Kubra (8/143). Al-Haakim said: This hadith is saheeh according to the conditions of al-Bukhaari and Muslim, although they did not narrate it. End quote. Adh-Dhahabi did not say anything about it in at-Talkhees. 
Although Ja‘far ibn Muhammad ibn Shaakir was classed as thiqah (trustworthy) by al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadi, Ibn Manaadi and Maslamah ibn Qaasim – as it says in Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (2/102) – he differed from the senior imams who had memorised the hadith of ‘Affaan ibn Muslim better than he did. The correct version of the hadith from ‘Affaan ibn Muslim is the shorter version, in which there is no mention of ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib swearing allegiance to Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) at that time. 
Sa‘d ibn Iyaas al-Jareeri followed Dawood ibn Abi Hind in narrating from Abu Nadrah, and his version mentions ‘Ali and az-Zubayr swearing allegiance to Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with them all), as it says in Tareekh Dimashq (30/278). But its isnaad includes ‘Ali ibn ‘Aasim ibn Suhayb al-Waasiti, who made a lot of mistakes in narration. ‘Ali ibn al-Madeeni said concerning him: ‘Ali ibn ‘Aasim made a lot of mistakes, but if he made a mistake and someone pointed it out, he would not repeat it. This was the verdict of all the critics concerning him.
End quote from Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (7/348) 
Thirdly: 
Conclusion: the oath of allegiance of ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him) which is proven is that which is mentioned in the Saheehs of al-Bukhaari and Muslim. As for the earlier oath of allegiance which is mentioned in the hadith of Abu Sa‘eed al-Khudri, there is some doubt as to whether it is proven. 
With regard to the claim of the Raafidi liars, that the oath of allegiance given by ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him) was sworn under compulsion, this is a false and fabricated claim that stems from obvious stubbornness and wilful blindness to the facts narrated with sound isnaads. If someone is like this, you cannot debate with him, because he is ignoring all rational, logical principles that you should both agree on as a reference point. And Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): “and turn away from the ignorant” [al-A ‘raaf 7:199]. And Allah knows best. 
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 
It is known from mutawaatir reports that no one refrained from swearing allegiance to him – namely Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq (may Allah be pleased with him) – except Sa‘d ibn ‘Ubaadah. As for ‘Ali and Banu Haashim, all of them swore allegiance to him, according to scholarly consensus, and none of them died without having sworn allegiance to him. However it was said that ‘Ali delayed his oath of allegiance for six months; it was also said that in fact he swore allegiance to him on the second day. Whatever the case, they swore allegiance to him without being forced to do so. End quote. 
Minhaaj as-Sunnah (8/232) 
And Allah knows best.

Praise be to Allah.
The
report of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allah be pleased with him) exiling Nasr
ibn al-Hajjaaj to Basra lest the women of Madinah be tempted by him has been
narrated in many reports, in brief and at length. 

It
was narrated by Ibn Shabbah in Tareekh al-Madinah (2/762) from
Qataadah, by al-Kharaa’iti in I‘tilaal al-Quloob (2/392), and by Ibn
al-Jawzi in Dhamm al-Hawa (p. 123), from Muhammad ibn al-Jahm ibn
‘Uthmaan ibn Abi’l-Jahm, from his father, from his grandfather, at length. 

It
was narrated by Abu Nu‘aym in Hilyat al-Awliya’ (4/322), and by Ibn
‘Asaakir in Tareekh Dimashq (62/21), from ash-Sha‘bi; and by Ibn Sa‘d
in at-Tabaqaat (3/216), from ‘Abdullah ibn Buraydah; by Ibn ‘Asaakir
in Tareekh Dimashq (62/23) from Muhammad ibn Sireen. 

To
sum up this story: ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allah be pleased with him) was
patrolling in Madinah when he heard a woman chanting some verses of poetry
in which she was saying: “Is there a way to get some wine to drink, and is
there a way to be with Nasr bin Hajjaj?” He summoned him and found that he
was a handsome youth, so he shaved his head, but it only made him better
looking. So he exiled him to Basra lest the women be tempted by him. Then he
sent word asking to return to his homeland, and stated that he had done
nothing wrong, but ‘Umar refused to give him permission and said: Not so
long as I am alive. 

The
story was mentioned by more than one of the scholars, including as-Sam‘aani
in al-Ansaab (3/156), Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah in several places
in  Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (11/552, 15/313, 28/109, 28/371), Ibn al-Qayyim
in I‘laam al-Muwaqqi‘een (4/284), al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar in al-Isaabah
(6/382), Ibn Muflih in al-Adaab ash-Shar‘iyyah (3/132), and others. 

Ad-Daaraqutni
(may Allah have mercy on him) said in al-Mu’talif wa’l-Mukhtalif
(4/2205): 

It
was said that Nasr ibn al-Hajjaaj was the son of al-Hajjaaj ibn ‘Alaat as-Sulami.
He lived at the time of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab and was described as very
handsome. He is the one concerning whom it was said: “Is there a way to get
some wine to drink, and is there a way to be with Nasr bin Hajjaj?” End
quote. 

Something similar was mentioned by Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr in al-Isti‘aab
(1/326); Ibn Makoola in al-Ikmaal (1/560) and Ibn al-Atheer in
Asad al-Ghaabah (1/456)

 Al-Haafiz
(may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

In
the book al-Mughribeen by Abu’l-Hasan al-Madaa’ini, I came across (a
report) via al-Waleed ibn Sa‘eed who said: ‘Umar heard some people saying:
Abu Dhu’ayb is the most handsome of the people of Madinah. He summoned him
and said: You are indeed very handsome; you must leave Madinah. He said: If
you must expel me, then (send me) to Basra, to which you expelled Nasr ibn
Hajjaaj. And he mentioned the story of Nasr ibn Hajjaaj, which is well
known.

End
quote from Fath al-Baari (12/159-160) 

This
story is well-known and widely narrated in the books of the scholars. It was
narrated via many chains of narration, but not one of them is free of
reservations. The soundest of its chains of narration is the mursal chain of
‘Abdullah ibn Buraydah, but the fact that it is widespread and mentioned in
the books of the leading scholars of the Muslims and those who are most well
versed in history and biography, along with the fact that it has been
transmitted through numerous chains of narration, indicate that it has some
solid basis. 

Secondly: 

From
the fiqhi point of view, this story comes under the heading of giving
precedence to the public interest over private interests; allowing
undermining of a personal interest for the purpose of protecting the public
interest is a must in general terms. 

Badr
ad-Deen az-Zarkashi (may Allah have mercy on him) said in al-Manthoor
fi’l-Qawaa‘id al-Fiqhiyyah (1/348-349): 

Ibn
‘Abd as-Salaam said: They were unanimously agreed that the greater evil may
be warded off by means of the lesser. Ibn Daqeeq al-‘Eid said: One of the
holistic general principles is that the greater of two evils may be warded
off by allowing the lesser, if there is no option but to allow one of them
to occur, and that the greater of two interests may be served by foregoing
the lesser, if only one option is inevitable. I mean: this is a general
rule, but it is not absolute and is not applicable in all cases. 

Shaykh ‘Izz ad-Deen said:

If
there is a conflict between two interests, the greater interest is to be
attained by foregoing the lesser. 

As-Sarkhasi
(may Allah have mercy on him) said in al-Mabsoot (9/45): 

If it
is proven (in a story) that a person was banished, then this is by way of
achieving a purpose and interest, not by way of applying a hadd punishment.
The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) banished
the effeminate man from Madinah, and ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him)
banished Nasr ibn Hajjaaj from Madinah when he heard a woman saying: “Is
there a way to get some wine to drink, and is there a way to be with Nasr
bin Hajjaj?” So he banished him, although good looks do not dictate that one
should be banished; rather he did that in the public interest. End quote. 

Al-Aloosi
(may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

The
ruler may banish someone in the public interest, as he sees fit, as it was
soundly narrated that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allah be pleased with him)
banished Nasr ibn Hajjaaj to Basra because of his good looks, as some of the
women were tempted by him.

End
quote from Tafseer al-Aloosi (9/280). 

If it
is said: The women of Basra would be tempted by him after he moved there, so
what should we do? We have only transferred the problem from one place to
another, and we have not dealt with the root of the problem! The answer is: 

Firstly: banishing him from his homeland and exiling him in a way that looks
like a punishment would cause the motive of fitnah (temptation) in his heart
andin the heart of others to be weakened, and it will teach the people to
resist whims and desires, and will serve as a condemnation of immorality. If
the people at the time of ‘Umar – whom the Shaytaan feared and was afraid of
encountering him – realised that this man was only banished because of fear
of fitnah, they would take precautions and be on guard against being tempted
by him. So it is as if it was said to the people of Basra: I have banished
this man to your land so that he will not be resident in the same city as
me, so beware of being tempted by him. 

Secondly: the one who is in exile is a stranger and is not like a resident,
for he is in a strange land where he will be distracted by his own affairs
or by working and earning a living, which will keep him away from the life
of ease and luxury that he used to enjoy in his homeland, when he was among
his family and clan. This will reduce his good looks and distract him from
taking care of himself and of his appearance. 

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

‘Umar
ibn al-Khattaab banished Nasr ibn Hajjaaj from Madinah, from his homeland,
to Basra, when he heard women composing poetry expressing their infatuation
with him. Before that, he had issued orders that his hair be shaved off, so
as to reduce his good looks by which the women were tempted. But after that
he saw that he was one of the most handsome of people in terms of his
cheeks, and that upset him, so he banished him to Basra. This was not
because he had done anything wrong or committed some immoral deed for which
he was to be punished; but among the women there were some who were tempted
by him, so ‘Umar issued orders that something be done to reduce his stunning
good looks. By moving him from his homeland, his ambition and physical
strength would be weakened, and he would feel that he was being punished.
This is by way of protective measures for fear of immorality and infatuation
before they take place; it was not by way of punishment.

End
quote from Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (15/313). 

Thirdly: the fact that this happened and was narrated, and people knew of
it, teaches the new generation to fight temptation and teaches people in
authority how to run people’s affairs from a shar‘i point of view, and how
to give the public interest precedence over private interests. It also
demonstrates that the temptation of women is one of the greatest
temptations. 

Fourthly: the sanctity of Madinah requires the banishment of anyone who is a
source of temptation to women; he should be made to leave and go to some
other land, out of respect for its sanctity. 

For
more information, please see the answer to question no.

151671

And
Allah knows best.

Praise be to Allah.
Firstly: 

If a person was a Muslim, then he apostatised from Islam and
became an atheist, he is an apostate, and there is no confusion about that.
The one who apostatises from Islam to another religion is not regarded as a
follower of that religion and does not come under the same rulings as
followers of that religion. Rather he is an apostate, like the atheist
mentioned above, and is to be treated as such. He is to be asked to repent
and come back to Islam; if he repents and comes back (all well and good),
otherwise he is to be executed because of his disbelief (kufr). 

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have
mercy on him) said: 

If anyone apostatises and becomes a Jew or a Christian, we do
not accept that, because the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon
him) said: “Whoever changes his religion, execute him.” Narrated by
al-Bukhaari (2854). In other words: whoever changes from being a Muslim, we
should execute him. 

Ash-Sharh al-Mumti‘ ‘ala Zaad al-Mustaqni‘,
11/306 

Based on that, if a person was Muslim then he became a
Christian or a Jew, meat slaughtered by him is not permissible because he is
not a kitaabi (one of the People of the Book); rather he is an apostate
whose meat cannot be eaten. If such a person is a woman, it is not
permissible to marry her, for the same reason. These people cannot be dhimmi
or mu‘aahad or musta’man (one who is granted protection and security by the
Muslims), because these statuses can only be granted to one who was
originally a kaafir, not to an apostate. The one who apostatised from Islam
has no choice but to return to his religion or to be executed as a kaafir,
if he persists in his apostasy. 

Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan (may Allah preserve him) said: 

In shar‘i terminology, the apostate (murtadd) is the
one who disbelieved willingly after having been a Muslim, by words, beliefs,
doubts or actions. 

There are rulings concerning the apostate in this world and
in the hereafter. 

With regard to this world, it was explained by the Messenger
(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) who said: “Whoever changes his
religion, execute him.” The scholars are unanimously agreed on that and on
what results from it of his wife being separated from him and his being
prevented from disposing of his wealth before he is executed. 

With regard to the hereafter, that is stated by Allah, may He
be exalted, in the verse (interpretation of the meaning): “And whosoever
of you turns back from his religion and dies as a disbeliever, then his
deeds will be lost in this life and in the Hereafter, and they will be the
dwellers of the Fire. They will abide therein forever” [al-Baqarah 2:217].
Apostasy occurs when one commits any of the actions that nullify Islam,
whether that is done in earnest or in jest or in mockery. Allah, may He be
exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): “If you ask them (about
this), they declare: “We were only talking idly and joking. Say: Was it at
Allah ( ), and His Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs,
revelations, etc.) and His Messenger (SAW) that you were mocking? Make no
excuse; you have disbelieved after you had believed” [at-Tawbah 9:65]. 

Al-Mulakhkhas al-Fiqhi, 2/565,
566 

See also the answer to question no.
20060 for further information. 

We should point out that the hadd punishment for apostasy –
like all other hadd punishments – cannot be carried out except by the caliph
or his deputy, according to scholarly consensus. It is not permissible for
individuals to carry out the hadd punishments themselves. 

We have discussed this in the answers to questions no.
107105,
12461 and
8980. 

Secondly: 

With regard to the way he should be dealt with, that is the
same as any other disbeliever: he should be called to Islam with kindness,
reminding him of his past when he was a Muslim, and that he must inevitably
feel the difference between his life in Islam and his life outside of it.
Help may be sought in doing that from those who know his language and come
from his country, so that it will be easier for him to understand. Giving
gifts also has a good impact on people’s hearts, so give him things that he
needs, by means of which you will be able to reach his heart. If he has some
difficulties in some worldly matters you can help him with them and make
things easier for him. All of that will make him think again about what he
has done, and perhaps he will come back to Islam before he dies, and that
will be recorded among your good deeds. 

All of that has to do with interacting with him. With regard
to the ruling, we have stated above that he is not like one who was
originally a kaafir. It is not permissible for a Muslim to inherit from an
apostate or for him to inherit from a Muslim, and the apostate woman cannot
marry a Muslim. If a Muslim woman is married to the apostate, her marriage
contract is rendered invalid. And there are other rulings. But we should
differentiate between the rulings and how we treat the individual. 

And Allah knows best.

Praise be to Allah.
Firstly: 

There is no doubt that reviling Allah, may He be exalted –
Allah forbid – or reviling His Messenger or His religion – Allah forbid –
comes under the heading of disbelief in Allah the Almighty. The one who does
that has committed major kufr that puts one beyond the pale of Islam. If he
dies in that state without having repented from it, then he will be one of
the people of Hell who will abide therein for all eternity. 

Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

The scholars are unanimously and definitively agreed that if
a Muslim reviles Islam, or criticises it, or he reviles the Messenger
(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), or criticises or mocks him, then
he is an apostate and a kaafir and it is permissible to sentence him to
death and seize his wealth.

End quote from Fataawa Noor ‘ala ad-Darb by Ibn Baaz,
p. 139 

Shaykh Ibn Jibreen (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked:

What is the ruling on one who reviles Allah and His Religion?
What is the expiation for that? Please note that the man concerned is
married; does his wife become haraam for him or is she divorced? 

He replied:

There is no doubt that this is apostasy from Islam and
disbelief in Allah for which the person who does it deserves to be sentenced
to death unless he repents; his wife is divorced from him and his ties of
kinship with his relatives are severed, so he does not inherit from them and
they do not inherit from him. But if he repents, regrets it, prays for
forgiveness and acknowledges his mistake, Allah will accept his repentance
and he can take his wife back if her ‘iddah has not ended; if it has ended
then it is up to her, and it is not permissible for him to take her back
except with her consent.

End quote from Fataawa Islamiyyah, 3/533 

Secondly: 

If a person hears someone clearly reviling Allah, or shar‘i
proof is established to that effect, then there is nothing wrong with him
believing that this person is a kaafir. This is the most abhorrent and
serious kind of reviling, and no one does that except one who has gone far
astray and has no respect for Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, or one
who has lost his mind and does not know what he is saying. 

This kind of reviling is not one of the obscure issues that
need a ruling from the scholars or need to be subjected to examination;
rather it is something very clear and obvious that can be recognised by
ignorant and knowledgeable alike, and old and young will be disgusted by
it. 

But at the same time it is essential to bear in mind the
shar‘i purpose behind denouncing that and regarding it as repugnant, which
is to remove and ward off that evil and to strive to make the one who said
it repent and come back to his Lord, even if he has apostatised and gone
beyond the pale of Islam. Asking the apostate to repent is something that is
well known and well established. So efforts should be made to exhort him in
a manner that is appropriate to his situation, explaining the abhorrent
nature of what he has done and to discuss with him the shar‘i way that is
appropriate to his situation. 

The scholars of the Standing Committee said: 

Reviling Islam – Allah forbid – is kufr according to the
texts and scholarly consensus. Allah, may He be exalted, said
(interpretation of the meaning):

“Was it at Allah, and His Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses,
lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and His Messenger (SAW) that you were
mocking?

Make no excuse; you have disbelieved after you had
believed”

[at-Tawbah 9:65].

And there are other similar texts. 

It is essential to advise him and denounce him for that; if
he responds, praise be to Allah, otherwise it is not permissible to initiate
the greeting of salaam with one who has reviled Islam, or to return his
greeting if he initiates the greeting; it is not permissible to accept his
invitation and he must be shunned completely until he repents or until the
ruling of Allah, which is to be sentenced to death, is carried out on him by
the authorities, because the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon
him) said: “Whoever changes his religion, execute him.” Narrated by
al-Bukhaari in his Saheeh, 3017.

End quote from Fataawa al-Lajnah ad-Daa’imah, 2/12 

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

If a person repents from any sin, even if that was reviling
Islam, his repentance will be accepted, if he fulfils the conditions that we
have mentioned. However it should be noted that a word may constitute kufr
or apostasy, but the one who utters it does not (necessarily) become a
kaafir thereby, because of the presence of some factor that prevents him
being labelled as a kaafir. In the case of this man who said that he reviled
Islam in a moment of anger, we say to him: If your anger was so severe that
you did not know what you were saying, and you did not know whether you were
in the sky or on the ground, and you said something without thinking and not
knowing what you were saying, there is no ruling that is applicable to these
words and you are not to be labelled an apostate, because this is something
that was said involuntarily and without thinking, and if anything is said
involuntarily and without meaning to, Allah, may He be glorified and
exalted, will not bring one to account for it. Allah, may He be exalted,
says concerning vows (interpretation of the meaning): “Allah will not
call you to account for that which is unintentional in your oaths, but He
will call you to account for that which your hearts have earned” [al-Baqarah
2:225].

End quote from Fataawa Noor ‘ala ad-Darb, 24/2 

For more information on the guidelines on labelling anyone as
a kaafir, please see the answer to question no.
85102 

And Allah knows best.