Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 9
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Laskowska, Natalia 2016. Contemporary Indonesian and Malaysian interpretations of ‘no compulsion in religion’. Indonesia and the Malay World, Vol. 44, Issue. 129, p. 249.

    Burhani, Ahmad Najib 2014. Treating minorities with fatwas: a study of the Ahmadiyya community in Indonesia. Contemporary Islam, Vol. 8, Issue. 3, p. 285.

    Koch, Bettina 2014. Religion, Power, and Resistance from the Eleventh to the Sixteenth Centuries.

    Burak, Guy 2013. Faith, law and empire in the Ottoman ‘age of confessionalization’ (fifteenth–seventeenth centuries): the case of ‘renewal of faith’1. Mediterranean Historical Review, Vol. 28, Issue. 1, p. 1.

    Hassner, Ron E. 2011. Blasphemy and Violence1. International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 55, Issue. 1, p. 23.

    Miller, Duane Alexander 2011. The Episcopal Church in Jordan: Identity, Liturgy, and Mission. Journal of Anglican Studies, Vol. 9, Issue. 02, p. 134.

    Ahmad, Ahmad Atif 2009. Islam, Modernity, Violence, and Everyday Life.

    Flower, Scott 2008. Muslims in Melanesia: putting security issues in perspective. Australian Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 62, Issue. 3, p. 408.

    Nelson, Matthew J. 2007. Who speaks for Islam?: ‘authenticity’ and the interpretation of Islamic law in America's war on terror. Australian Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 61, Issue. 2, p. 247.

  • Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Volume 64, Issue 3
  • October 2001, pp. 339-354

Toleration and exclusion: al-Shāfi‘ī and al-Ghazālī on the treatment of apostates

  • DOI:
  • Published online: 01 October 2001

The muslim judgement against apostates has in recent years been applied in cases of publicly expressed conviction that contradict generally accepted foundations of the Muslim faith. This situation is, however, only the outcome of a theological and legal development in the 5th/11th century. Until that time, the judgement of apostasy (irtidād) could not have been applied against Muslims who voiced opinions that were regarded as unbelief. The rules for this earlier period were written down by al-Shāfi‘ī in his Kitāb al-Umm. His interpretation of the legal institution of istitāba leads to the acknowledgement that the judgement of irtidād is applicable only in a very small number of cases. This reflects legal sensitivity in the period of mass conversions when the secret practice of pre-Islamic religious rites amongst newly converted Muslims might have been widespread. Al-Shāfi‘ī's guidelines, based on earlier judgements within the Kufan tradition, gained widespread acceptance in the Hanafī, Hanbalī, and Shāfi‘ī schools of law. A first change can be noted in the middle of the 5th/11th century when authors such as al-Māwardī and Abū Ya‘lā argued for a less generous application of the istitāba. Two generations later, al-Ghazālī (d. 555/1111) and his contemporaries such as Ibn ‘Aqīl (d. 513/1119) did not restrict the judgement of irtidād to cases of openly declared apostasy. Al-Ghazālī develops a reasoning which is fully aware of the change in law and of the deviation from long-established principles. His own condemnation of three key statements of the falāsifa, expressed in his Tahāfut al-falāsifa, would be impossible without his identification of kufr with irtidād in earlier works.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies
  • ISSN: 0041-977X
  • EISSN: 1474-0699
  • URL: /core/journals/bulletin-of-the-school-of-oriental-and-african-studies
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *