Sunni Punishment for Abandoning Salat
In Sunni Islam, apostasy is punishable by death. This ruling is drawn directly from hadith literature, such as the report in Sunan al-nasa'i:
Ibn ‘Abbas said: “The Messenger of Allah said: ‘Whoever changes his religion, kill him.’”
Amran ibn Moses told us, Abd al -Warath told us, “Ayoub said to us, on the authority of Akramah,” he said, “Ibn Abbas, peace be upon him, said.” Whoever changes his religion, kill him ” .
The name of 4059
https://sunnah.com/nasai:4059
But beyond explicit apostasy, another category was developed: abandonment of Salat (prayer). Even if a Muslim does not renounce Islam outright, simply failing to perform prayer was framed as kufr (disbelief), with some jurists demanding execution.
Jabir reported the Messenger of Allah (May peace be upon him) as saying: Between a servant and disbelief (kufr) there is the abandonment of prayer.
Ahmad ibn Hanbul told us, we spoke to us, Safayn, on the authority of Abu al -Zubayr, on the authority of Jabir, he said, the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, said. Between the servant and between the disbelief, the prayer is left ” .
The name of Abi Dawud 4678
https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4678
In the commentary to this narration, we see the following:
Al-khaṭṭābī said: “At-Tarūk (leaving the prayer) has three categories. Among them is leaving (the prayer) while (fundamentally) denying it (that it should be performed). And this is Kufr according to the consensus of the Ummah. Among them is leaving it because of forgetfulness; in this case there is a consensus of the Ummah that one has not committed Kufr. (Meaning, he is required to pray when he remembers it). Among them is purposefully leaving it (the prayer) without (fundamentally) denying it (that it should be performed). It is this that the people have differed over. Ibrāhīm An-Nakha‘ī, Ibn Al-Mubārak, Aḥmad bin Ḥanbal and Isḥāq bin Rāḥūyah held the view that whoever left the prayer on purpose, without an excuse, until its time has expired, then he is a disbeliever. And Aḥmad said: ‘We do not declare anyone among the Muslims, a disbeliever, for any sin, except for leaving the prayer.’
Makhḥūl and Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that he who leaves the prayer should be killed like a disbeliever, but that does not take him out of the religion, and he should be buried in the graveyard of Muslims, and his family inherits from him. But some of the followers of Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that he should not be prayed for when he dies. And the followers of Ash-Shāfi‘ī differed over how he should be killed. Most of them held the view that he should be killed in captivity with the sword. Ibn Shuraiḥ said that he should not be killed in captivity with the sword, but he should be beaten until he prays, or beating him results in his death. And they said that he should be killed when he leaves one prayer until its time has expired. Except that Abū Sa‘eed Al-Aṣṭakhī said that he should not be killed until he left three prayers. And I think that he held this view because it is possible that he had an excuse to delay the prayer until the next prayer’s time, in order to combine the two of them. Abū Ḥanīfah and his followers said that the one who leaves the prayer is not considered a disbeliever, nor killed, but he should be imprisoned and beaten until he prays. They interpreted the narration to have an implication of severe warning and threat.” (The moder of the form-name no. 1658)
Diverging Juristic Views
According to this commentary, Al-Khaṭṭābī divided the abandonment of prayer into three categories. The first is leaving prayer while denying its obligation, which he said is unanimously considered disbelief (kufr). The second is leaving prayer out of forgetfulness, and here too there is consensus that the person has not committed disbelief, though he remains obliged to pray once he remembers. The third category—deliberately abandoning prayer without denying its obligation—was the source of major controversy among scholars.
Some jurists, such as Ibrāhīm An-Nakha‘ī, Ibn al-Mubārak, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and Ishaq ibn Rahuyah, ruled that whoever intentionally leaves the prayer until its time has expired is a disbeliever. Ahmad ibn Hanbal even stated explicitly that no Muslim should be declared a disbeliever for any sin except abandoning prayer. In his view, the gravity of neglecting Salat placed it in a category of its own, on par with apostasy.
Other authorities, including Makḥūl and al-Shafi‘i, took a slightly different approach. They argued that the one who abandons prayer should be executed “like a disbeliever,” though he would still be counted within the fold of Islam—buried in a Muslim graveyard, and his family would inherit from him. Even within the Shafi‘i school, however, there was disagreement. Some of his followers went so far as to say such a person should not receive funeral prayer. Others debated the method of execution: the majority held that he should be killed in captivity with the sword, Ibn Shuraiḥ suggested that he should not be killed directly but beaten until he prayed (even if this resulted in his death), while Abu Sa‘eed al-Aṣṭakhī maintained that he should not be executed unless he missed three prayers, allowing for the possibility that he merely intended to combine them.
By contrast, Abu Hanifah and his followers rejected the idea that abandoning prayer amounted to disbelief at all. They argued that the hadith in question was a stern warning rather than a literal legal command. According to their view, the one who neglects prayer should not be killed, but rather imprisoned and beaten until he resumes the practice. This interpretation cast the hadith as a tool of moral deterrence rather than a binding judicial ruling, avoiding the charge of apostasy while still emphasizing the seriousness of abandoning Salat.
Quran Refutes Hadith
When we turn to the Quran, the contrast could not be starker. The Quran consistently rejects the use of coercion in matters of faith, affirming that guidance must be a free choice of the heart. In Sura 2:256, God declares, “There shall be no compulsion in religion; the right way has become distinct from the wrong way.” If no one can be compelled into religion itself, then how can someone be compelled into prayer under the threat of death? Forcing Salat at sword-point is the very definition of compulsion, a direct violation of the Quran’s principle.
This same theme runs throughout the Quran. In Sura 109:1–6, God commands the Prophet to say to the rejecters: “To you is your religion, and to me is mine.” The verse accepts the possibility of divergence in worship and makes clear that coercion is not the prophetic model. The Prophet is told to separate himself peacefully from those who refuse, not to threaten them with execution.
Sura 10:99 underscores this even further: “If your Lord had willed, all who are on earth would have believed, all of them together. Will you then force the people until they become believers?” Here God explicitly rebukes the very idea of forcing people into worship. Faith that comes from compulsion is meaningless, and the Quran insists that God Himself has chosen to allow human beings the freedom to accept or reject.
Another powerful passage is 18:29: “The truth is from your Lord; so whoever wills—let him believe; and whoever wills—let him disbelieve.” Belief and worship are presented as genuine choices, even though rejection carries consequences in the Hereafter. Likewise, in 88:21–22 the Prophet is reminded: “So remind, for you are only a reminder. You are not a controller over them.” These verses emphasize that the Prophet’s mission was to convey, not to coerce.
Taken together, these verses demolish the notion that someone may be executed, imprisoned, or beaten for abandoning Salat. While the Quran strongly condemns heedlessness toward prayer—warning of “woe to those who are neglectful of their prayers” (107:4–5)—it never prescribes worldly punishment. Accountability is consistently deferred to the Day of Judgment, where God alone will hold every soul responsible.
To threaten a believer with death for missing prayer is, therefore, not only absent from the Quran but a reversal of its entire principle: belief must be sincere, uncoerced, and left to each individual before God. By introducing punishments that compel prayer, the hadith rulings turn worship into submission to human authority, not to God. This is why such narrations stand in direct contradiction to the Quran—they undermine the very freedom upon which faith rests.
Conclusion
The hadith “Between a servant and unbelief is the abandonment of prayer” became the foundation for rulings that sanctioned execution, imprisonment, and beatings. Some jurists called the abandoner of Salat an outright disbeliever; others insisted he remain within Islam yet be killed like an apostate; still others prescribed imprisonment or endless flogging until he complied. In every case, the underlying logic was coercion—using worldly force to compel devotion to God.
But the Quran speaks with a unified voice against such coercion. It insists, “There shall be no compulsion in religion” (2:256), and reminds the Prophet himself, “You are only a reminder; you are not a controller over them” (88:21–22). Faith, by the Quran’s design, cannot be sustained through fear of men but must arise from a heart freely devoted to God. To punish with death or violence for abandoning Salat is not an enforcement of faith, but its corruption.
Thus, the hadith rulings on abandoning prayer are not merely an exaggeration of Quranic warnings—they are their inversion. Where God reserves judgment for the Day of Resurrection, jurists seized it for themselves. Where God grants freedom, hadith enforcers imposed compulsion. In the end, these narrations do not protect the sanctity of Salat but betray it, reducing an act of worship to coerced obedience to human authority. The Quran leaves no doubt: prayer is commanded, but sincerity cannot be forced, and judgment belongs to God alone.
