Dr. Ibrahim Jalingo, National Chairman of the Council of Ulama, has ignited a firestorm of debate after publicly endorsing the death penalty for individuals who renounce Islam. In a lengthy and controversial statement posted Thursday on his official Facebook page, the Islamic cleric defended a Hadith that prescribes capital punishment for apostates, asserting that it aligns with Islamic teachings and does not contradict the Qur’an.
Responding to critics who argue that such Hadith contradict Qur'anic principles, Jalingo accused them of "compound ignorance" and launched a pointed theological rebuttal. The Hadith in question reads: “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.”
“The Prophet (peace be upon him) was given both the Qur’an and something like it alongside it—the Hadith. Both are divine revelations,” Jalingo asserted, insisting that Hadith serves not merely as an interpretation of the Qur’an but as a companion revelation that elaborates on its guidance.
Jalingo cited various Qur'anic verses, including Surah At-Tawbah 9:5 and Surah An-Nisa’ 4:89, to argue that the Qur’an supports the execution of apostates and polytheists in specific contexts. He further claimed that the oft-cited verse advocating religious freedom—“There is no compulsion in religion” (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:256)—had been abrogated by later revelations and rulings.
He wrote, “Only someone completely ignorant would claim that the Hadith contradicts the Qur’an. The Qur’an itself, in multiple places, supports the stance taken in the Hadith.”
Jalingo's post was triggered by an online campaign called “100 Hadiths That Contradict the Qur’an,” which seeks to question the authenticity and alignment of certain Hadiths with Islamic scripture. He singled out a participant in the campaign, Issiyaku Abdulkadir, accusing him of distorting Islamic teachings and likening his arguments to those of “prostitutes and effeminate men.”
The post has since gone viral across social media, dividing public opinion. While some hardline supporters praised Jalingo for what they see as a bold defense of traditional Islamic jurisprudence, many others—both within and outside the Muslim community—have condemned the remarks as extreme, inflammatory, and dangerous.
Several Islamic scholars and human rights advocates have raised concerns about the implications of Jalingo’s statements, warning that such rhetoric undermines religious tolerance and could fuel sectarian violence.
As the debate continues to unfold, the cleric remains unyielding in his stance, insisting that his interpretation is rooted in authentic scripture and centuries of Islamic legal tradition.
Leave a Reply