Explanation of the author's statement: "…and he is not to be killed until he is given three days to repent in both cases."

The Shaykh : He says "and he is not to be killed until he is given three days to repent in both cases". Who is not to be killed? The one who abandons it and the one who denies it. That is, the one who denies its obligation commits disbelief, and likewise the one who abandons it while denying it, and the one who abandons it. He is not to be killed until he is given three days to repent in both cases, meaning in the denial and the abandonment. "Yustaṭābu" is a present tense verb in the passive voice. So who gives him the chance to repent? The one who has authority, the Imam or his deputy, gives him the chance to repent three times. He says, "Repent to Allah and pray." He says, "I am not praying. What is today?" He says, "I am not praying." On the second day, they bring him and say, "Pray." He says, "Let me think." On the third day, they bring him. He says, "I am still thinking. Give me until the end." They gave him until five minutes before sunset. They gave him until five minutes before sunset. He prayed for three days and prayed before the sun set. Is he killed or not? He is killed. But note, if he dies during this period, he is a disbeliever.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : If he dies, may Allah have mercy on him, we rule that he is a disbeliever, but he is not killed. The author did not say, "and he is not ruled to be a disbeliever." He said, "he is not to be killed until he is given the chance to repent." If he dies, he is a disbeliever. So we say, we do not kill him until we give him the chance to repent for three days. We have discussed this issue, I think, in the chapter on the apostate, and we mentioned that there is a difference of opinion among the scholars, and that there are two narrations from Imam Ahmad. This is not specific to the one who abandons the prayer while denying its obligation, but applies to every apostate: is the apostate given the chance to repent or not? We mentioned that the school of thought says apostates are of two types. One type does not have their repentance accepted. Who are these? They are not given the chance to repent. Why? Because there is no benefit; even if they repented, we would not accept it. For example, one who insults Allah or His Messenger, or whose apostasy has recurred. This person is killed even if he repents. If he says, "I bear witness that Allah is the One who has no god but Him, the Knower of the unseen and the witnessed, the Most Merciful, the Compassionate, the Ever-Living, the Sustainer," and describes Allah with His attributes, and says, "I repent from describing Allah and the Exalted with deficiency and fault," we say, we will kill you; we do not accept your repentance. This is the school of thought, and the correct view is that it is accepted, as mentioned earlier. Another type has their repentance accepted. According to the school of thought, what is required? He must be given the chance to repent. It is required that he be given the chance to repent. The second narration is that he is not given the chance to repent and is killed, because the transmitted texts are absolute and general regarding disbelief. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said and did not say, "So give them the chance to repent, and if they repent, otherwise kill them." He said, "Kill them." So everyone who does what necessitates apostasy is killed, based on the hadith. The second opinion, which is a narration from Imam Ahmad, is that he is given three days to repent, and this is the school of thought. They cited evidence from a report from 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him). They cited a report from 'Umar that a man who had apostatized was mentioned to him, and he was killed. So he said to them, "Why did you not give him the chance to repent? Perhaps he would return, perhaps he would come to his senses, perhaps so and so, perhaps so and so." May Allah protect me from what they did. But there is a third, middle opinion. They said that this is left to the ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) of the ruler. It is left to the ijtihad of the ruler. This does not contradict what 'Umar said, nor does it oppose the apparent evidence. If the ruler sees that it is in the public interest to give this man the chance to repent, either because he is doubtful about the man's condition—whether he is insane or sane, or something like that—or because the matter has not become clear or evident, then what is preferred here? Giving the chance to repent. There is no doubt that giving the chance to repent is preferred. But if this man is open and his matter is clear and evident, then he is not given the chance to repent, because hastening to kill him serves as a deterrent to others, while also adhering to the apparent evidence. This opinion is the correct one, and it does not contradict the two opinions; rather, it is part of the opinion of those who see giving the chance to repent, and part of the opinion of those who do not see giving the chance to repent. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) and others hold this view, apparently, but I have not come across the opinion of anyone else who follows this approach sometimes, meaning that he takes a middle path between the two opinions and then says this is part of the opinion of those who say so and so. Like his statement regarding witr that it is obligatory for one who has a regular practice, and like his statement regarding the Friday bath that it is obligatory for one who has a smell, and the like.