Biography of Ikrima: The Slave of Ibn ‘Abbas

(From Tahdhib al-Kamal fi Asma’ al-Rijal by Jamal al-Din Abu al-Hajjaj al-Mizzi)

‘Ikrimah was born approximately in the 20s-30s AH (640s-650s CE), as he reportedly died around 105-107 AH at age 80. He was a mawla (freed slave) of Abdullah ibn Abbas, allegedly one of the most knowledgeable companions of Prophet Muhammad. Ibn Abbas was known as “hibr al-ummah” (the scholar of the nation) and “turjuman al-Qur’an” (the interpreter of the Qur’an). ‘Ikrimah likely spent his formative years in the household of Ibn Abbas, where he would have been exposed to profound Islamic knowledge.

He received extensive religious education directly from Ibn Abbas. This privileged position gave him access to one of the foremost authorities on Qur’anic interpretation and prophetic traditions. He became one of the most prolific narrators among Ibn Abbas’s students. His education equipped him with vast knowledge in Qur’anic exegesis, hadith, and jurisprudence. After Ibn Abbas’s death (68 AH/687-8 CE), ‘Ikrimah emerged as a major transmitter of his teacher’s knowledge. He became recognized for his extensive knowledge, particularly in Qur’anic interpretation. Many notable scholars narrated from him, including Ibrahim, Al-Sha’bi, Jabir ibn Zaid, Ata’, and Mujahid. He was considered by some to be the most knowledgeable among Ibn Abbas’s followers and some scholars like Muhammad bin Sireen would attribute narrations to Ibn Abbas that actually came through ‘Ikrimah.

‘Ikrimah traveled extensively throughout the Islamic world, which was unusual for scholars of his era. His journeys took him to Khurasan, Syria (Sham), Yemen, Egypt, Africa, and Samarkand. When questioned about leaving the holy cities for distant lands, he explained he was “seeking provisions for my daughters”, reports suggest though that he visited rulers seeking rewards, which some critics viewed negatively. He may have been involved in spreading particular theological views during his travels, with reports that “the people of Africa adopted the opinion of the Sabriyya from ‘Ikrimah”

Theological Positions

• He was associated with Kharijite views, a controversial political-theological movement
• Mus’ab ibn ‘Abdullah al-Zubayri explicitly stated: “He used to hold the opinion of the Kharijites“
• This association with Kharijite thought likely contributed to the mixed reception he received from other scholars.
• Some reports suggest he was forced to hide from authorities in Medina at some point, possibly due to these views

Controversies and Criticism

• His reliability as a narrator was contested among scholars
• Imam Malik ibn Anas notably disliked him and advised against taking knowledge from him [this is important to remember for later in the blog]
• He was sometimes accused of contradicting himself or changing positions
• Some questioned his personal conduct, with reports of him playing backgammon and praising singers
• Al-Qasim reportedly claimed Ibn Abbas himself had called ‘Ikrimah a liar
• His association with Kharijite views damaged his reputation among some traditionalist scholars

Later Life and Death

• He reportedly died in Medina around 105-107 AH (723-725 CE), though reports vary
• He died on the same day as Kathir ‘Azzah, a famous poet
• Accounts of his funeral differ dramatically:
  • Some report that many people attended his funeral
  • Others claim few attended, with one report stating “only the Sudanese of Medina”
  • One account mentions that “no one bore his bier; four people carried it”
• After his death, some reportedly said: “Today died the most knowledgeable and eloquent among people”

Legacy

• Despite controversies, his narrations were widely used by hadith scholars
• Al-Bukhari included his narrations in his Sahih collection
• Later scholars generally accepted his reliability in hadith when transmitted by trustworthy narrators
• He left behind a substantial body of knowledge, particularly in Qur’anic interpretation
• His connection to Ibn Abbas ensured that his transmissions remained valuable to the scholarly tradition
• He represents an interesting case study of how theological views could affect a scholar’s reception in early Islamic scholarship

‘Ikrimah and the Hadith on Apostasy

In a previous blog & video, I discussed how Ikrima was responsible for the creation of the hadith that commands people to execute apostates. For the transmission history, click the link below:

The Law of Apostasy – The Sneaky Khawariji in The Hadith Corpus

The hadith often cited regarding apostasy punishment (“Whoever changes his religion, kill him”) is frequently traced back through ‘Ikrimah from Ibn Abbas. Several factors make this connection significant:

1. Kharijite Theological Influence: ‘Ikrimah was explicitly associated with Kharijite views according to multiple classical scholars. The Khawarij were known for their strict positions on faith and apostasy, considering major sinners to be apostates deserving death. This theological position aligned with a strict interpretation of apostasy punishment.
2. Contextual Timing: The ridda wars (apostasy wars) occurred during the caliphate of Abu Bakr (11-13 AH/632-634 CE), when certain Arab tribes rejected the authority of Medina after Prophet Muhammad’s death. Though these events preceded ‘Ikrimah’s scholarly activity, the theological justifications for these conflicts continued to evolve during his lifetime.
3. Theological Alignment: The Kharijite position on apostasy was particularly severe, and a hadith prescribing execution for apostates would align with and reinforce such views. This theological compatibility could have influenced ‘Ikrimah’s emphasis on or interpretation of traditions related to apostasy.
4. Historical Memory Formation: During ‘Ikrimah’s active period (late 1st century AH), Islamic legal thought was still developing. The ridda wars remained an important historical memory that shaped discussions about community boundaries and authority. ‘Ikrimah’s transmission of this hadith occurred during this formative period when interpretations of these events were crystallizing.
5. Reliability Questions: As documented in the biographical information, multiple scholars questioned ‘Ikrimah’s reliability. Al-Qasim claimed Ibn Abbas himself called ‘Ikrimah “a liar who narrates a morning hadith that contradicts the evening.” This raises questions about the authenticity of his transmissions.
6. Traveling and Context Shifting: ‘Ikrimah’s extensive travels throughout the Islamic world allowed him to disseminate traditions in various contexts, potentially adapting them to different audiences or in response to different theological debates.

After Prophet Muhammad died, many Arab tribes refused to pay taxes to Medina and some rejected the religion altogether. Abu Bakr, the first caliph, fought these tribes in what became known as the ridda wars. These conflicts left a lasting question: what happens to someone who leaves the religion? During ‘Ikrimah’s lifetime, this was still a hot topic. Different groups had different ideas about who was a true Submitter and what should happen to those who left the faith. The Kharijites, who ‘Ikrimah was associated with, had very strict views. They believed that serious sinners weren’t Submitters anymore and could be killed. Since ‘Ikrimah was known to share their views, this may have colored how he understood and taught about apostasy. When he traveled across the Muslim world teaching, he emphasized traditions that matched his beliefs.

As a respected student of Ibn Abbas, when ‘Ikrimah shared the hadith about killing apostates, people listened. This happened at a time when Muslims were still figuring out their laws and traditions, so his influence was significant. The fact that so many scholars questioned his reliability makes it worth considering whether this particular hadith reflects authentic teaching or was shaped by his personal theological views.

The Evolution of Ikrima’s Decision To Narrate Anti-Apostasy Hadith

A blanket statement such as, ‘whoever changes their religion, kill them,’ would cause so many problems considering this statement essentially gives every Muslim a license to execute individuals they believed were disbelievers. It was understood that this narration needed guardrails, so Imam Malik and other schools of thought adopted ways to reconcile this:

Malik related to me from Abd ar-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Abd al-Qari that his father said,

“A man came to Umar ibn al- Khattab from Abu Musa al-Ashari. Umar asked after various people, and he informed him. Then Umar inquired, ‘Do you have any recent news?’ He said, ‘Yes. A man has become a kafir after his Islam.’ Umar asked, ‘What have you done with him?’ He said, ‘We let him approach and struck off his head.’ Umar said, ‘Didn’t you imprison him for three days and feed him a loaf of bread every day and call on him to repnt that he might turn in repentence and return to the command of God?’ Then Umar said, ‘O God! I was not present and I did not order it and I am not pleased since it has come to me!’ “

Muwatta – Book 36, Hadith 16

There are significant reasons to doubt the authenticity of this account attributed to Umar ibn al-Khattab in Muwatta Book 36, Hadith 16. The chain of transmission raises immediate red flags. The narration comes through Abd ar-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Abd al-Qari, who is essentially unknown in the broader hadith literature. This is a narrator who appears to have virtually no other significant transmissions preserved in the major collections, making this particular narration stand out as anomalous. When a narrator has only a single notable transmission to their name – especially one that establishes an important legal precedent – this should trigger skepticism.

More problematic is that this Abd ar-Rahman narrates from his father, who remains even more obscure. This “father” figure is practically anonymous in hadith transmission circles, lacking the credentials and recognition that would typically accompany reliable narrators of important legal precedents. In hadith criticism, this kind of obscurity in the chain is considered a serious weakness. While it seems implausible that Imam Malik would intentionally fabricate such a narration, it’s entirely reasonable to suspect that Abd ar-Rahman or someone before him in the chain might have. The narration conveniently serves to temper the more severe approach to apostasy found in other traditions, particularly those traced through ‘Ikrimah. This moderation aligned with the developing juristic sensibilities of Malik’s time.

---

The dialogue presented in the narration also has elements that seem almost too perfect in establishing a precedent for a three-day grace period. The precise formulation—imprisonment for three days, daily bread, and continuous calls to repentance—reads more like a later legal formula than an authentic historical account of Umar’s spontaneous reaction. The timing is also suspect. During the formative period of Islamic law when positions on apostasy were being debated, having a definitive statement from Umar opposing immediate execution would be tremendously valuable for those advocating a more moderate position. This creates a clear motive for the emergence of such a tradition, regardless of its historical accuracy.

Maliki View of Apostasy

‘Ikrimah’s Kharijite views, which advocated for strict punishment of apostates, likely shaped his transmission of hadiths calling for the immediate execution of those who left Islam. This harsher stance influenced later jurists, including Imam Malik. Malik’s moderate position on apostasy, which included a waiting period and opportunities for repentance, was based on a narration from Umar ibn al-Khattab that is transmitted through an obscure chain of narrators—Abd ar-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Abd al-Qari and his unknown father. The weakness of this chain, combined with the absence of corroboration in other sources, casts doubt on the authenticity of the narration. Despite these issues, Malik adopted this moderate approach, which aligned with his legal sensibilities and diverged from the more severe traditions tied to ‘Ikrimah’s Kharijite influence. Therefore, Malik’s stance was built upon a questionable narration, back-projecting a more lenient view that was not necessarily reflective of Umar’s true practice.

An early theological dispute in Islam was the question of whether the grave sinner is an unbeliever and can therefore be killed. The question was related to the murder of the third caliph ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān in 35/656. In the spring of that year, malcontents from Egypt, Basra, and Kufa proceeded to the capital, Medina, to complain about various matters.¹ Those who had a hand in the caliph’s killing during this revolt were sometimes later identified with the earliest Khārijites.² Indeed, some Khārijite groups developed a theology that could perfectly justify the killing of ‘Uthmān. All Khārijites shared the opinion that committing a grave sin leads to unbelief. The more radical groups held that if a believer becomes an unbeliever by committing a grave sin, he turns away from Islam and may be killed as an unbeliever.

• “Toleration and Exclusion: al-Shāfiʿī and al-Ghazālī on the Treatment of Apostates.” By Frank Griffel

The Khārijite insistence on takfīr for grave sinners influenced the transmission of hadiths that mandated immediate execution for apostates, a stance most notably linked to ‘Ikrimah. His reports, shaped by this extremist ideology, played a pivotal role in the legal formulation of apostasy punishments, leading later scholars to grapple with the implications of his narrations.

Imam Malik’s approach, though comparatively lenient, was not necessarily rooted in an authentic historical precedent. His reliance on the narration attributed to ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb—despite its weak chain and lack of widespread corroboration—suggests a legal adaptation rather than a strict preservation of early Islamic practice. This choice allowed Malik to distance his jurisprudence from the harsh Khārijite-inspired traditions while still maintaining a framework for apostasy punishment.

‘Ikrimah’s Kharijite leanings led him to fabricate hadiths advocating immediate execution for apostates, attributing them to the Prophet, thereby shaping later Islamic jurisprudence. Imam Malik, however, adopted a more lenient stance based on a weakly transmitted narration from Umar, casting doubt on its authenticity. This established guardrails for ‘Ikrimah’s narration and influenced later schools of thought in their development of apostasy laws.

[2:256] There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient.

[18:29] Proclaim: “This is the truth from your Lord,” then whoever wills let him believe, and whoever wills let him disbelieve. We have prepared for the transgressors a fire that will completely surround them. When they scream for help, they will be given a liquid like concentrated acid that scalds the faces. What a miserable drink! What a miserable destiny!

More:

The Law of Apostasy – The Sneaky Khawariji in The Hadith Corpus