that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. Hence the scholars differed: Does the apostate or disbeliever repent merely by saying, “None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,” after which he is required to testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah—so that if he testifies, [his repentance is accepted], but if not, he is executed? Or does he not enter Islam until he testifies to both testimonies?

A practical consequence follows from this difference. If we adopt the first view, then once he says, “None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,” he has entered Islam. If he then refuses to say, “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah,” we execute him because he is an apostate.

According to the second view—that the disbeliever, meaning the original disbeliever, does not enter Islam except through both testimonies—if he says, “I testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah,” but refuses to say, “I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah,” we do not execute him, because he has not become an apostate. He does not enter Islam unless he testifies to both testimonies; and when the condition—the testimony of both testimonies—is absent, that which depends upon it, namely Islam, is likewise absent. He therefore remains upon his original disbelief and is then dealt with in the manner that such disbelief entails.

Some scholars said: If this person already acknowledges that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, but is a polytheist, it is sufficient for his repentance that he testify, “None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,” since he already testifies that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. They based this on the account of Abu Talib, saying that Abu Talib testified that Muhammad was the Messenger of Allah, as he said:

“They have known that our son is not deemed a liar among us,
Nor is he one concerned with uttering falsehoods.”

Thus, he testified that he was a Messenger, yet remained a polytheist; therefore, it is sufficient for him to make the testimony