The Apostasy Hadith
Fabrication: The Case Against Ikrima
How a Kharijite theologian used his master’s name to manufacture the most lethal ruling in Islamic law — and what the historical record reveals.
The Hadith and the Problem
“Whoever changes his religion, kill him.”
Sahih al-Bukhari 6922, 3017 — transmitted via Ikrima mawla Ibn Abbas
The Arabic phrase man baddala dinahu fa-qtuluhu means “whoever changes his religion, kill him.” This short saying appears in Sahih al-Bukhari twice — at hadith numbers 6922 and 3017 — and is cited across every major school of classical Islamic law as the proof-text for executing apostates. Its legal weight is enormous. It has shaped rulings, state policy, and violent persecution across fourteen centuries.
The problem is that this hadith traces back to a single person. That person had documented sectarian motives to invent exactly this ruling. His own master’s son accused him of fabricating narrations. The leading Medinan scholar of the following generation refused to use his reports. And a governor of Medina sought to arrest him for his extremist religious views.
The Core Transmission Path: The canonical version runs — Bukhari receives it from Ali ibn Abdallah, who received it from Sufyan ibn Uyayna, who received it from Ayyub al-Sakhtiyani, who received it from Ikrima, who reported it on the authority of Ibn Abbas, who attributed it to the Prophet. Every independent-looking chain in the corpus traces back to the same point: Ikrima.
This hadith does not appear in Sahih Muslim. This is not a minor omission — Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj explicitly rejected Ikrima as a reliable transmitter and excluded him from his collection on those grounds. The tradition also does not appear in the Muwatta of Malik ibn Anas, the earliest surviving major hadith collection. Malik’s silence on a tradition this legally significant is itself a form of negative judgment.
Who Was Ikrima mawla Ibn Abbas?
Ikrima ibn Abdallah died around 105 AH (roughly 723 CE). He was of Berber origin, enslaved, and became the property of the Companion Ibn Abbas — the Prophet’s cousin and the most celebrated early Quranic interpreter. After Ibn Abbas died, Ikrima passed to Ibn Abbas’s son Ali ibn Abdallah ibn Abbas.
The accusations against Ikrima in the biographical literature are not vague. They center on a single specific behavior: putting words in Ibn Abbas’s mouth that Ibn Abbas never said.
Primary Testimony — Ibn Abbas’s Own Household:
Yazid ibn Abi Ziyad, a reliable early transmitter, reported: “I entered the house of Ali ibn Abdallah ibn Abbas and found Ikrima shackled at the door of the latrine. I asked: what is wrong with this man? He said: he lies about my father.“
Source: Ibn Abi Khaythama, Tarikh al-Kabir; Mukhtasar of Ibn Asakir’s Tarikh Dimashq; Yaqut al-Hamawi, Mujam al-Udaba.
Primary Testimony — Ibn Umar’s Warning:
Ibn Umar reportedly warned his own mawla Nafi: “Do not lie about me the way Ikrima lied about Ibn Abbas.”
Source: Multiple biographical chains in the rijal literature.
Primary Testimony — Malik ibn Anas:
Malik ibn Anas refused to narrate from Ikrima and ordered people not to take hadith from him. The reason is documented in Yahya ibn Main’s records, transmitted by Ibn Abi Khaythama: “Ikrima held the Sufri view.”
Source: Ibn Abi Khaythama, Tarikh al-Kabir; Ibn Saad, Tabaqat al-Kubra, Vol. 5, pp. 286–292.
Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj also explicitly rejected Ikrima. The result: the tradition appears in Bukhari but not in Muslim, and not in the Muwatta. The two most rigorous hadith critics of the 3rd century both refused to use him.
What is the Sufriyya? The Sufriyya were a branch of the Kharijites who, unlike the militant Azariqa, operated within ordinary Muslim society rather than taking up arms. Their defining theological position was that theological deviants — people who held wrong beliefs — could be declared apostates and lawfully killed without requiring armed revolt. This is exactly the legal ruling that man baddala dinahu fa-qtuluhu enables.
Why the Narrative Form Is the Smoking Gun
The longer narrative form of the tradition — where Ali burns the zanadiqa and Ibn Abbas corrects him — is older than the short standalone saying. The short saying “whoever changes his religion, kill him” appears to be an extraction from the narrative, not the origin of it.
“Ali was brought some zanadiqa and he burned them. News of this reached Ibn Abbas, who said: ‘Had it been me, I would not have burned them, in accordance with the Prophet’s prohibition on burning; but I would have killed them, in accordance with the Prophet’s statement: whoever changes his religion, kill him.'”
— Sahih al-Bukhari 6922, primary chain: Ayyub al-Sakhtiyani → Ikrima → Ibn Abbas
This narrative does three things at once, and all three serve Ikrima’s agenda:
1. Diminishes Ali’s Authority
Ali is portrayed as acting correctly in principle (killing theological deviants) but making a procedural error (burning instead of beheading) that only Ibn Abbas can correct. For a Kharijite — a movement that viewed Ali as a deviant ruler and eventually assassinated him — having Ali corrected by his own cousin on a point of law is exactly the kind of narrative you would want to circulate.
2. Establishes Prophetic Mandate
The formula “whoever changes his religion, kill him” enters the story as a Prophetic saying that Ibn Abbas alone possesses. This transforms what was a specific incident (Ali burning people in Kufa) into a general Prophetic ruling applicable to any theological deviant.
3. Launders Kharijite Position
It launders a Kharijite legal position through the most prestigious Hijazi scholarly name. Ibn Abbas is the turjuman al-Quran (interpreter of the Quran) — the most celebrated Companion scholar on legal matters. Having him cite a Prophetic saying as the basis for killing deviants makes the ruling unassailable for anyone who accepts the transmission.
Geographic Problem: Ikrima was based in Basra, not Kufa. He was not present at any incident involving Ali. The narrative is reported by him as something that “reached Ibn Abbas” — hearsay, at several removes from the event. Hasan Farhan al-Maliki, in a critical study of the tradition, made this explicit: “The story of the burning was transmitted solely by Ikrima mawla Ibn Abbas, who did not witness it.”
The Transmission Map: All Paths Lead to Ikrima
Isnad-cum-Matn Analysis (ICMA), developed by G.H.A. Juynboll, reveals Ikrima as the Common Link through which all transmission chains converge. Juynboll’s methodology demonstrates that “the common link is in most cases the originator of the tradition.”
| Collection | Hadith Number | Chain Through | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sahih al-Bukhari | 6922, 3017 | Ayyub al-Sakhtiyani → Ikrima | Primary canonical source |
| Sunan Abi Dawud | 4351 | Hammad ibn Zayd → Ayyub → Ikrima | Same Ayyub transmission |
| Jami al-Tirmidhi | 1458 | Sufyan ibn Uyayna → Ayyub → Ikrima | Same Ayyub transmission |
| Sunan al-Nasai | 4059–4065 | Multiple routes → Ikrima | Qatada also from Ikrima |
| Sunan Ibn Majah | 2535 | → Ikrima | Standard chain |
| Musnad Ahmad | 1871, 2551, 2552, 2966 | → Ikrima | Multiple Ahmad transmissions |
| Sahih Muslim | ABSENT | — | Muslim excluded Ikrima deliberately |
| Al-Muwatta | ABSENT | — | Malik rejected Ikrima’s narrations |
Critical Finding
Every attested chain converges at Ikrima. The ostensibly independent chain through Qatada ibn Diama transmitting from Anas ibn Malik is not actually independent — Qatada is himself attested transmitting the tradition directly from Ikrima in Nasai 4062 and Tabarani 11835. He knew Ikrima’s version. What looks like a second independent witness is in fact a re-routing of the same source.
⚠ Son ʿAlī b. ʿAbdallāh warned family not to trust ʿIkrima’s transmissions
⚠ MAWLĀ relationship = plausibility cover for Ibn ʿAbbās citation
⚠ Khārijite sympathies · Mālik refused to narrate from him entirely
⚑ Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd: kādhib · Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj: excluded from his Ṣaḥīḥ
[FRAME] ʿAlī burned zanādiqa with books · [SAY-1] lā tuʿadhdhib bi-ʿadhāb Allāh · [SAY-2] man baddala dīnahu MINKUM fa-qtulūhu
[DISMISS] lil-Lāhi darru Ibn ʿAbbās (positive admiration) · qāla ʿIkrima = self-marking
Victim = زنادقة · Formula = K5 (with مِنكُم) · ʿAlī’s reaction = ADMIRING · Preserved in: al-Balādhurī / Ibn ʿAwn
← Swipe to see all branches →
≈ wayḥa (negative) replaces lil-Lāhi darru (positive)
– drops مِنكُم from kill-formula ★ juristic broadening
≈ sometimes ارتدوا replaces زنادقة as victim
Q1: names ʿIkrima explicitly — Nasāʾī 4062, Ṭabarānī 11835
Q2: drops ʿIkrima, substitutes Anas b. Mālik — tadlīs caught
Q3: via al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī mursal — no Companion at all
– SAY-1 dropped in every non-ʿIkrima version
≈ man RAJAĀ ʿan dīnihi (K3) replaces baddala (K1)
+ qaḍā Allāhi wa-rasūlihi framing (elevated authority)
≈ Yemen / Muʿādh / Jewish apostate / no ʿAlī scene
+ كتب (books) detail
≈ order K2→K1 reversed
– dismissal absent
★ Preserves زنادقة
★ Preserves مِنكُم (K5)
★ Preserves lil-Lāhi darru
= Most archaic surviving form
+ أحدا in SAY-1
≈ ارتدوا عن الإسلام
★ Generalizes victim
ʿIkrima explicitly cited
★ The admission — source confessed
– SAY-1 gone entirely
≈ زنادقة → ZUṬṬ
+ innamā qāla (restrictive)
No Companion named
– all context stripped
Transmits BOTH ʿIkrima AND Yemen
⚑ rajaʿa/baddala oscillation
Independent of Ayyūb above Ḥumayd
+ 3× repetition (Muʿādh insists)
+ hospitality/cushion scene
★ مِنكُم + lil-Lāhi darru = earliest surviving text
≈ Zuṭṭ version · no ʿIkrima
– SAY-1 · dismissal gone
≈ Rated “more correct” by Nasāʾī
⚑ man rajaʿa / aw qāla man baddala (oscillation)
+ Ibn ʿAbbās appended to Qatāda→Anas chain
≈ 4476: man TARAKA dīnahu (K4 — 3rd formula variant)
⚑ Formula instability continues into 4th century
+ ṣadaqa Ibn ʿAbbās — “Ibn ʿAbbās was right”
→ ʿAlī now AGREES — anti-ʿAlī polemic softened
Later harmonization of ʿIkrima’s original hostile frame
+ compiles BOTH Qatāda AND ʿIkrima streams
+ adds Ibn Masʿūd + ʿĀʾisha “same meaning”
★ Constructing tawātur from laundered sources
≈ Blended isnad: Saʿīd → Qatāda + Ayyūb → Ibn ʿAbbās
– ʿIkrima’s name DROPPED ENTIRELY
★ Ruling operative — origin fully concealed
≈ zanādiqa → JAHMIYYA (new theological target)
Tradition weaponized against Muʿtazilite-adjacent theology
★ 200 years after ʿIkrima — identical juristic move, new victim
≈ ʿUmar cites kill-formula (11–12 AH setting)
+ Ridda Wars narrative context — al-Ashʿath b. Qays
★ So established it enters foundational historiography
≈ ʿAlī now SOPHISTICATED JURIST (not rebuked)
– Ibn ʿAbbās as correcting voice removed entirely
★ Tradition so canonical it must be engaged, not ignored
-
مَنْ بَدَّلَ دِينَهُ فَاقْتُلُوهُ K1 — DOMINANT · Groups A, B, F, most C“whoever changes his religion, kill him”
-
مَنْ رَجَعَ عَنْ دِينِهِ فَاقْتُلُوهُ K3 — Yemen narrative“whoever REVERTS from his religion” — maps to Jewish apostate scenario
-
مَنْ تَرَكَ دِينَهُ فَاقْتُلُوهُ K4 — Ibn Ḥibbān 4476 only“whoever LEAVES his religion” — broadest form · over-extended chain
-
مَنْ بَدَّلَ دِينَهُ مِنكُم فَاقْتُلُوهُ K5 — Ibn ʿAwn / al-Balādhurī = ʿIkrima original“among YOU” + مِنكُم — restricts to Muslims · most archaic surviving form
-
قَضَى اللهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَنَّ مَنْ رَجَعَ عَنْ دِينِهِ فَاقْتُلُوهُ K6 — Yemen family (Aḥmad 22015)“God and His Messenger DECREED…” — qaḍāʾ framing elevates authority
If this were a genuine prophetic saying transmitted through independent Companion witnesses, the operative legal verb — baddala, rajaʿa, or taraka — would be stable. Companions memorized prophetic speech verbatim.
Five distinct formula variants, none derivable from the others as simple corruption, is consistent with a juristic ruling circulated in paraphrased summary by one Tābiʿī source — not a directly transmitted prophetic utterance.
⚑ Yemen oscillation (K3 / K1): a transmitter uncertain at the exact formula of an execution ruling = matn fingerprint of single-source Tābiʿī origin.- ʿIKRIMA (ORIGINAL): zanādiqa burned · SAY-1: lā tuʿadhdhib · SAY-2: man baddala MINKUM · Dismiss: lil-Lāhi darru (positive) · qāla ʿIkrima self-mark
- AYYŪB: – drops مِنكُم ★ broadens formula · ≈ wayḥa (negative) replaces lil-Lāhi darru · ≈ ارتدوا generalizes victim
- ḤAMMĀD b. ZAYD: + books (كتب) · ≈ K2 before K1 · – dismissal dropped · preserves zanādiqa
- IBN ʿAWN: ★ preserves مِنكُم (K5) · ★ preserves lil-Lāhi darru = most archaic surviving text · confirms ʿIkrima’s original before Ayyūb changed it
- QATĀDA TADLĪS: Q1 names ʿIkrima (the slip) · Q2 zanādiqa→Zuṭṭ, – SAY-1, – dismiss, + innamā · Q3 mursal via al-Ḥasan — no Companion
- ḤUMAYD b. HILĀL: ≈ K3 (rajaʿa) + K6 (qaḍāʾ) · Yemen/Jewish apostate · – SAY-1 · – ʿAlī dismiss · ⚑ K3/K1 oscillation exposes contamination
- IBN ḤIBBĀN / TIRMIDHĪ / BAYHAQĪ: + appended Companions · ṣadaqa harmonization · compiles both streams = false tawātur
- AL-KHALLĀL / AL-DĀRIMĪ / AL-WĀQIDĪ: ʿIkrima erased · zanādiqa→Jahmiyya · formula retrojected into Ridda Wars historiography
Isnad-cum-matn analysis following J. Little (Islamic Origins, 2022) · 86 transmissions · Groups A–G · Arabic sources: OpenITI corpus + canonical collections
Historical Deployment: From Sectarian Tool to State Law
The 3rd-century Sunni scholar al-Darimi (died 280 AH / 893 CE) wrote a book called Radd ala al-Jahmiyya — a refutation of the Jahmiyya, a theological school accused of denying God’s attributes. In this book, al-Darimi explicitly cites the Ikrima chain of the zandaqa-burning narrative. Then he applies the formula directly to the Jahmiyya:
“Thus the practice of Ali and Ibn Abbas has established the killing of the zanadiqa. The Jahmiyya in our view are a type of zanadiqa — they are asked to repent; if they repent, released; if not, killed.”
— Al-Darimi, Radd ala al-Jahmiyya (OpenITI: JK001333). Chain: Sulayman ibn Harb — Hammad ibn Zayd + Jarir ibn Hazim — Ayyub — Ikrima.
This is the tradition’s function made fully visible. By al-Darimi’s generation — 150 years after Ikrima — the origin in Ikrima’s transmission has become invisible. It travels through the clean Ayyub al-Sakhtiyani chain, which gave it Bukhari’s endorsement. But the purpose is exactly what the Sufriyya believed: a legal ruling that allows killing theological opponents by labeling them as apostates.
Al-Darimi also records Malik ibn Anas’s opinion that Qadarites (theological determinists) who refused to repent should be killed — using the same framework. The chain of deployment runs:
| Actor | Period | Target group | Source used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ikrima (produces the tradition) | c. 80–105 AH | Zanadiqa / theological deviants | Attributes it to Ibn Abbas → Prophet |
| Umayyad state | c. 80–125 AH | Qadariyya, zanadiqa | Ikrima chain via court scholars |
| Al-Darimi | d. 280 AH | Jahmiyya | Ayyub → Ikrima chain explicitly cited |
| Abbasid caliph al-Mahdi | 168–169 AH | Zanadiqa (mass executions in Baghdad) | Same formula applied in inquisition |
| Classical jurists | 3rd–4th century AH | Any apostate from Islam | Man baddala as standard proof-text |
Why Ikrima Survived When Others Did Not
A reasonable question arises: if Ikrima was a Kharijite, why did the Umayyads leave him alone? They executed Saad ibn Jubayr (94 AH), tortured Maabad al-Juhani to death (c. 80 AH), and had Ghaylan al-Dimashqi’s hands and feet amputated before crucifying him. Why did Ikrima die peacefully?
Ibn al-Athir’s al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh places the executions of Jad ibn Dirham and Ghaylan al-Dimashqi in direct succession — both killed for theological deviance under Umayyad governors. Al-Tabari’s Tarikh al-Rusul wa-l-Muluk records Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik boasting that executing the Qadariyya was among the greatest acts of his son Walid II’s reign. The Umayyads were capable of lethal violence against theological dissidents.
Three factors explain Ikrima’s survival:
1. His Kharijism Was the Wrong Type to Threaten the State
The Umayyads executed people connected to armed rebellion (Saad ibn Jubayr had ties to Ibn al-Ashath’s revolt) or theological innovators who undermined their divine authority (Maabad and Ghaylan were Qadarites, whose denial of predestination threatened Umayyad fatalism). Ikrima’s Sufriyya Kharijism was theological and legal, not military. He was not raising armies.
2. His Anti-Alid Bias Was Useful
The Umayyads were in permanent conflict with the Alid family since the first civil war. A tradition that portrays Ali as making a legal error corrected by his own cousin served Umayyad propaganda interests regardless of who produced it.
3. He Had Direct Umayyad Patronage
The biographical sources record that Ali ibn Abdallah ibn Abbas briefly sold Ikrima to Khalid ibn Yazid ibn Muawiya — a grandson of the first Umayyad caliph — for four thousand dinars. Ikrima confronted Ali over the sale and shamed him into reversing it. The episode confirms that members of the Umayyad royal house found him valuable enough to pay an enormous sum for him.
Ibn Asakir’s Tarikh notes that a governor of Medina eventually did seek to arrest Ikrima for his Kharijite views. Ikrima hid at the house of Dawud ibn al-Husayn until he died there. The fact that even this late threat did not result in capture suggests he retained enough protection to survive where others could not.
The Quran Contradicts This Hadith Directly
Classical Islamic legal methodology (usul al-fiqh) holds that a khabar ahad — a report transmitted through a single chain of narrators — cannot override an explicit Quranic text. The apostasy hadith is a khabar ahad. It traces to one person (Ikrima). Several Quranic verses state positions that cannot be reconciled with executing apostates.
| Quranic verse | Text | Contradiction with the hadith |
|---|---|---|
| 2:256 | “There is no compulsion in religion” | Executing people for leaving a religion compels them to remain in it |
| 4:137 | Describes people who believed, then disbelieved, then believed again, then disbelieved | Multiple apostasies in one lifetime are only possible if apostasy does not carry a mandatory death sentence |
| 10:99 | “Had your Lord willed, all those on earth would have believed. Would you then compel people until they become believers?” | Defines the Prophet’s role as non-coercive |
| 88:21–22 | “So remind — you are only a reminder. You have no dominance over them.” | Explicitly denies the Prophet authority to enforce belief |
| 17:33 | Permits taking life only bil-haqq (with legitimate right) | A single-transmitter hadith from a disputed source does not constitute bil-haqq |
Assessment
An isolated hadith from a single disputed transmitter cannot override explicit Quranic positions under classical usul al-fiqh. The Quran explicitly denies compulsion in religion (2:256), describes multiple apostasies without execution (4:137), and limits the Prophet’s role to reminder rather than enforcer (88:21-22). The hadith contradicts the Quran.
The Silence of Every Other Companion
If the Prophet said “whoever changes his religion, kill him,” the most basic question in hadith criticism applies: why did only one person hear it?
Umar ibn al-Khattab — who presided over the conquest of the entire Middle East and dealt with apostasy cases during his caliphate — never cited this saying. His documented handling of apostasy cases does not involve execution under a Prophetic formula. Ali ibn Abi Talib actually burned the zanadiqa in Kufa — but apparently without knowing this Prophetic saying, which is why the narrative needs Ibn Abbas to produce it after the fact. Aisha, Abu Hurayra, Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf, and every other major Companion left no trace of this tradition.
The early legal practice recorded by Malik in the Muwatta — which does not include this hadith — shows apostates being invited to return, being imprisoned, and being given time to reconsider. That is what the early Medinan practice looked like. It does not look like automatic execution under a Prophetic formula that every Companion somehow failed to transmit.
Assessment
For a ruling of this magnitude — capital punishment for leaving one’s religion — to be known only to Ikrima, transmitted only through him, and absent from the practice of every Companion and caliph who faced real apostasy cases, is not what authentic Prophetic transmission looks like.
It is what fabrication looks like.
What Evidence Would Change This Conclusion?
This is not a conclusion that rests on suspicion alone. A fabrication argument requires meeting a specific evidential standard, and the standard here is met on multiple independent fronts.
The tradition fails the most basic test of authentic Prophetic transmission: it cannot be traced before Ikrima through any chain that does not lead back to Ikrima. The ostensibly independent chain through Qatada ibn Diama transmitting from Anas ibn Malik is not actually independent. Qatada is himself attested in Nasai 4062 and Tabarani 11835 transmitting the tradition directly from Ikrima. He knew Ikrima’s version. What looks like a second independent witness is in fact a re-routing of the same source.
The tradition appears in Bukhari but not in Muslim. The reason is documented. The tradition does not appear in the Muwatta. The reason is documented. These are not accidental absences. They reflect specific, recorded judgments by the two most authoritative compilers in Sunni hadith history.
The tradition perfectly matches the sectarian interests of its common link. Ikrima’s Sufriyya Kharijism required exactly this kind of ruling. The narrative form directly serves his anti-Alid agenda. The biographical accusations of fabrication against him come from the closest possible source — Ibn Abbas’s own family.
The Falsification Standard: If a previously unknown early source were to surface that attributed this saying to the Prophet through a completely independent chain — one that did not pass through Ikrima, did not share his matn variants, and predated the 1st century AH — that would change the analysis. No such source exists.
Final Verdict: Complete Fabrication
The Verdict is Unanimous
By the standards of hadith criticism, this tradition is a proven fabrication.
❌ Single-Point Failure
FAILED. All attested chains converge at Ikrima. No independent transmission exists. Qatada’s alternative chain reroutes to Ikrima. This is textbook Common Link analysis proving Ikrima as the originator.
❌ Documented Fabricator
FAILED. Ibn Abbas’s own son shackled him for lying about his father. Malik ibn Anas rejected him. Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj excluded him. Ibn Umar warned his own students not to imitate Ikrima’s lying.
❌ Sectarian Motive
FAILED. Ikrima held Sufriyya Kharijite views — the exact theology requiring this ruling. The narrative form serves anti-Alid bias. The hadith enables killing theological opponents as “apostates.”
❌ Quranic Contradiction
FAILED. Quran 2:256 denies compulsion in religion. Quran 4:137 describes multiple apostasies. Quran 88:21-22 denies coercive authority. A khabar ahad cannot override explicit Quranic text.
Conclusion: Hadith Rejected
The saying man baddala dinahu fa-qtuluhu fails ALL FOUR criteria for authentic Prophetic transmission: (1) Single-point transmission failure, (2) Documented fabricator as common link, (3) Sectarian motive matching content exactly, (4) Direct contradiction with explicit Quranic verses.
Isnad-cum-Matn Analysis (ICMA) proves this was fabricated by Ikrima mawla Ibn Abbas in 1st-century Basra to serve a specific Kharijite theological agenda. It was laundered through Ibn Abbas’s prestige, survived due to Umayyad political utility, and became lethal law through historical accident. This is not divine revelation — this is vaticinium ex eventu dressed as prophecy, serving sectarian violence across fourteen centuries.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the apostasy hadith?
The apostasy hadith is the saying attributed to the Prophet Muhammad: “Whoever changes his religion, kill him” (man baddala dinahu fa-qtuluhu). It appears in Sahih al-Bukhari at numbers 6922 and 3017. It has served as the primary textual basis for the classical ruling that leaving Islam is punishable by death. All attested chains of transmission for this hadith trace back through the single transmitter Ikrima mawla Ibn Abbas.
Who is Ikrima mawla Ibn Abbas?
Ikrima ibn Abdallah (died approximately 105 AH / 723 CE) was a formerly enslaved Berber scholar from the household of the Companion Ibn Abbas. He became a prolific hadith transmitter of the Tabiun generation. He was deeply controversial: Malik ibn Anas refused his narrations, Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj excluded him from his collection, and Ibn Abbas’s own son accused him of inventing reports and attributing them to his father. Multiple independent biographical sources identify him as holding Kharijite views, specifically of the Sufriyya branch.
Is the apostasy hadith in Sahih Bukhari?
Yes, at numbers 6922 and 3017. Both chains run through Ikrima. It does not appear in Sahih Muslim, because Muslim specifically excluded Ikrima from his collection on reliability grounds. It also does not appear in Malik’s Muwatta, the earliest surviving major collection. The hadith’s presence in Bukhari but absence from Muslim and the Muwatta reflects documented decisions by the compilers, not random variation.
Why would Ikrima fabricate the apostasy hadith?
Ikrima held Sufriyya Kharijite views. The Sufriyya believed that theological deviants could be declared apostates and lawfully killed. This is the exact legal ruling man baddala dinahu fa-qtuluhu enables. The narrative form of the tradition also casts Ali ibn Abi Talib as making a legal error corrected by Ibn Abbas — which directly serves the Kharijite hostility toward Ali that is documented across Ikrima’s biography. He had structural motives both to establish the ruling and to launder it through Ibn Abbas’s authority.
Does the Quran support killing apostates?
No Quranic verse prescribes execution for apostasy. Quran 2:256 states there is no compulsion in religion. Quran 4:137 describes multiple cycles of faith and apostasy in a single person’s life, which only makes sense if the person survives each apostasy. Quran 10:99 and 88:21-22 define the Prophet’s role as reminder, not enforcer of belief. Under classical usul al-fiqh, a single-transmitter hadith from a disputed narrator cannot override explicit Quranic text.
What does Malik ibn Anas say about Ikrima?
Malik ibn Anas refused to narrate from Ikrima and ordered people not to take hadith from him. The documented reason, preserved in Yahya ibn Main’s records and transmitted by Ibn Abi Khaythama in his Tarikh al-Kabir, is that Ikrima held the Sufri Kharijite view. This is the most authoritative early rejection of Ikrima on record, from the leading Medinan scholar of the 2nd century AH — and it happened within living memory of Ikrima’s activity.
Video Analyses
These two videos cover the material in this analysis in spoken form — the first examines the full hadith corpus on apostasy, the second focuses specifically on Ikrima and the question of whether he misled Imam al-Bukhari.
