out of fear of being killed. Even supposing that the apostate’s disbelief consisted of blasphemous abuse, no judge adhering to the schools of the four imams would rule that his property belongs to the public treasury after he embraces Islam. Those who rule that he should be executed do so only because, according to their well-known position, his execution is a prescribed punishment. Whoever holds that he should be executed for his concealed unbelief also holds that he cannot be held liable on the basis of such a confession.

Moreover, according to most of those who hold that view, the property of someone who conceals his unbelief passes to his Muslim heirs. When the hypocrites who lived during the Prophet’s lifetime—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—died, Muslims inherited from them despite their hypocrisy being known with certainty. Such was the case with ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ubayy and others whose heirs inherited from them while knowing of their hypocrisy. Nor did any Companion and hypocrite inherit from one another otherwise than by inheritance. A hypocrite is what the jurists who discuss the repentance of the zindīq call a zindīq.

Furthermore, if the judge’s ruling takes effect concerning his life, where there may be disagreement, it applies with still greater force to his property. No one in the Muslim community holds that his property may be confiscated while his life remains inviolable. Such a position would contradict consensus. Thus, if a ruling affirming the inviolability of his life does not require a claim brought on behalf of the ruler, this applies all the more to his property.

It has therefore become clear, on several grounds, that the property of someone in this situation cannot be adjudged to belong to the public treasury.

“First”: Nothing rendering his life forfeit has been established against him, whether through legally valid evidence or an unequivocal confession;