Sadiq Abdulrahim

When people began to tag me to this man’s video, I knew I had to tread carefully. I have been wary of his rhetoric before, but I couldn’t just jump to it like many people wanted me to do because I had a long day yesterday. So I needed to go watch the full podcast to understand the complete picture. More importantly, when non-Muslims share cut and join videos of Muslims on the timeline, do not take those clips at face value. Most times, it is done with malicious intent to paint Islam in the worst possible light. Having understood the full context, my refutation is based on the full truth of his interview, not just this viral snippet. NB: This is a long piece. What this viral video did not show you is that he was speaking hypothetically. He was framing his answers based on what he would do if he were a Muslim leader operating within a pure Islamic state. However, knowing this full context does not validate his claims. In fact, it only shifted his error from street vigilantism to tyrannical extremism. Even as a hypothetical Head of State, his understanding of Shari'ah is severely broken. To break this down, we must first look at the foundational ruling on apostasy. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said in a Hadith reported by Ibn Abbas and recorded in Sahih Bukhari: من بدل دينه فاقتلوه "Whoever changes his religion, execute him." To understand this text, we must understand the context of the man who said it. Imam Ash-Shatibi explained in his foundational work Al-Muwafaqat that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not act in one single capacity throughout his life. His actions fell into three distinct stages. First, he acted as a Messenger, conveying divine revelation and spiritual guidance. Second, he acted as a Mufti, giving specific religious verdicts to people who came with personal questions. Third, he acted as an Imam, meaning the Head of State, Commander in Chief, and Supreme Judge. We must state firmly here that when the Prophet gave the ruling on apostasy, he was acting strictly in his third capacity as the Head of State. By implication, this was a decree of state policy. And when we look at it critically, the policy is justified. You know why? Early Islamic Medina was not a mosque or a social club. It was a nascent sovereign state surrounded by existential threats. They were dealing with the hostile Quraysh, hypocrites sabotaging them from within, rebellious tribes, and massive military superpowers like the Roman and Persian empires. In that era, religion and citizenship were the same thing. Leaving Islam did not mean you stopped praying in your bedroom like many people think it is today. It meant you formally defected to the enemy army to wage war against the state of Medina. It was political and military betrayal. Let’s bring it home. Under the Nigerian constitution or US federal law, the highest crime a citizen can commit is high treason. If Nigeria is in a state of war, and you as a citizen cross the border and join the enemy camp, whether you leak military secrets or not, the mere fact that you join the enemy camp makes you a target. The penalty is death. The Islamic state views this defection through the very same lens. It is a matter of national security and active sabotage. Here, people can argue that what if a person just denounces Islam and walks away quietly without leaking state secrets or joining an enemy army? Does the treason analogy still hold? If we look at the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him), his approach was even softer and more restrained than what modern nations practice today. 1/3🧵