Then he recants and says: "I did not know what I said." His statement is not accepted, and his first acceptance of Islam is not invalidated. It has been narrated from Ahmad that it is accepted from him and he is not compelled to remain in Islam. Abu Bakr said: "This is a plausible view, because a child is in a state prone to deficiency, so it is possible that he is being truthful." He said: "However, the practice is based on the first view, because his understanding of Islam and his knowledge of it have been confirmed by his actions—the actions of rational people—his dealings, which are like their dealings, and his speech, which is like their speech. Through this, the knowledge of his understanding is attained; just as we consider his maturity after he reaches puberty by his actions and dealings, and we recognize the madness of the insane and the reason of the sane by the actions, words, and states that emanate from them. Thus, what we have recognized does not vanish merely by his own claim. Likewise, anyone who utters the declaration of Islam, or informs others of it regarding himself, and then denies having knowledge of what he said, his denial is not accepted, and he is considered an apostate. Ahmad explicitly stated this in several places. Once this is established, if he apostatizes, his apostasy is valid. Abu Hanifah held this view, and it is the apparent position of Malik's school. According to al-Shafi'i: Neither his Islam nor his apostasy is valid. It has been narrated from Ahmad that his Islam is valid, but his apostasy is not valid, based on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "The Pen is lifted from three: ...from the child until he reaches puberty." This implies that no sin or anything else is recorded against him; and if his apostasy were valid, it would have been recorded against him. As for Islam, it is not recorded against him; rather, it is recorded in his favor. Furthermore, apostasy is a matter that necessitates the death penalty, so its ruling is not established regarding the child, just as in the case of adultery. Moreover, his acceptance of Islam is valid because it is purely in his best interest, similar to a bequest (wasiyyah) or the granting of freedom upon death (tadbir), whereas apostasy is purely harmful and corruptive, so its validity is not binding upon him. Accordingly, his status is that of one who has not apostatized; thus, when he reaches puberty, if he persists in disbelief, he is an apostate at that time.

1544- Issue: He said: (He is not killed until he reaches puberty and three days pass after his puberty, then if he remains firm in his disbelief, he is killed.)

The summary of this is that a child is not killed, whether we say his apostasy is valid or we do not, because a boy is not subject to punishment, as evidenced by the fact that the rulings regarding adultery, theft, and other legal penalties (hudud) do not apply to him, and he is not killed.