and enforcement mentioned above, to issue a ruling concerning his property that contradicts the initial judgment and its enforcement? Will the ruler be rewarded for preventing anyone from taking his property, or any part of it, on the grounds mentioned?

He replied:

Praise be to Allah. Yes, the aforementioned judgment is valid, as is its enforcement. By the agreement of the Muslims, the public treasury has no claim to the property of someone in this situation. A ruling affirming his Islam and the inviolability of his property does not require the presence of an opposing party representing the public treasury, for neither of these depends upon a judicial ruling. The imams agree that when an apostate embraces Islam, his Islam renders his life and property inviolable, even if no judge rules to that effect. The administrator of the public treasury has no claim concerning the property of someone who embraces Islam after apostasy.

Indeed, the position of al-Shāfiʿī and Abū Hanīfah, and also of Ahmad according to the well-known view reported from him, is that if legally valid testimony of apostasy is given against someone, but he denies it and pronounces the two requisite testimonies of faith, he is deemed a Muslim. He need not confess to what the witnesses have alleged against him. How much more so, then, when no upright witness has testified against him? In such a case, by the agreement of the Muslims, a ruling affirming the inviolability of his life and property does not depend upon his confession.

The inviolability of such a person’s life does not require him to confess and then embrace Islam after being driven to do so. This may entail compelling him to lie about himself by saying that he committed disbelief. For this reason, such a confession may not be accorded the legal effect of a valid confession, since it is known that he was prompted to confess and was, in effect, coerced into doing so; for he did so only