the Messenger and upheld by the earliest Muslims and the community’s imams, as attested by the Book and the Sunnah. If it becomes clear to him that this is what the Messenger brought, yet he persists in opposing the Messenger and following a path other than that of the believers, he must be called upon to repent; if he does not repent, he is to be put to death.

Likewise, if it becomes clear that this position does not constitute disbelief, but is one that Muslims agree is permissible to hold, and that its proponent exercises independent scholarly judgment and is rewarded for that effort, whether right or wrong—then, if he persists in declaring someone an unbeliever when the Book, the Sunnah, and scholarly consensus establish that this person is not an unbeliever, and it becomes clear to him that he is committing disbelief, yet he persists in opposing the Messenger and following a path other than that of the believers, he must be called upon to repent; if he does not repent, he is to be put to death. This is like someone who considers belief that the Messiah is Allah’s servant to be hostility towards the Messiah, or believes that anyone who says, “Do not swear by the prophets,” has thereby shown hostility towards them and become an unbeliever. Such a person must be called upon to repent.

Another point is that his own imam, Mālik, and the majority of Mālik’s followers explicitly addressed this issue. It appears in their books, both large and small, yet he is unfamiliar with what they said. Rather, he declares an unbeliever, curses, and insults anyone who holds the very position they held. His position thus entails declaring them unbelievers, reviling them, and deeming their blood lawful to shed.

Another point is his statement:

“Authentic hadiths have been transmitted concerning visiting his grave, along with others that do not reach the degree of authenticity, but which may nevertheless be cited as evidence for rulings