testifying that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, nothing more shall be disclosed.)

The discussion on this issue is in two sections:

The first of them: If someone is testified against for apostasy by those whose testimony establishes apostasy, and he denies it, his denial shall not be accepted. He shall be called to repent; if he repents, he is saved; otherwise, he is killed. It has been narrated from some of the followers of Abu Hanifa that his denial is sufficient for returning to Islam, and he is not obligated to utter the two testimonies (shahadatayn); because if he were to confess to disbelief and then deny it, it would be accepted from him, and he would not be tasked with the two testimonies—thus it is the same here. Our argument is what al-Athram narrated with his chain of authority from Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), that a man from the Arabs who had become a Christian was brought to him. He called him to repent, but he refused, so he killed him. Then a group of people who prayed were brought to him, who were Zindiqs (heretics), and reliable witnesses had testified against them. They denied it and said: "We have no religion but Islam." He killed them and did not call them to repent. Then he said: "Do you know why I called the Christian to repent? I called him to repent because he had manifested his religion. As for the Zindiqs against whom the evidence has been established, I only killed them because they denied it after the evidence had been established against them." Furthermore, his disbelief has been established, so his Islam cannot be judged without the two testimonies, just like an original unbeliever. Also, his denial is a refutation of the evidence, so it is not heard, just like other legal claims. As for if he confesses to disbelief and then denies it, it is possible that we might say regarding it what we said in our issue. Even if we concede, the difference between them is that the legal penalty (hadd) was necessitated by his own words, so his retraction of it was accepted; but what is established by evidence is not established by his own words, so his retraction of it is not accepted, just as in the case of adultery: if it were established by his own confession and he retracted it, he would be spared, but if it were established by evidence, his retraction would not be accepted.

Section: Testimony for apostasy is accepted from two upright witnesses, according to the opinion of most scholars. Malik, al-Awza'i, al-Shafi'i, and the jurists (Ashab al-Ra'y) also hold this view. Ibn al-Mundhir said: We do not know of anyone who disagreed with them except al-Hasan. He said: Only four are accepted in a case of killing; because it is testimony regarding that which necessitates killing, so only four are accepted therein, by analogy to adultery. Our argument is that this is testimony in a matter other than adultery, so it is accepted from