.jpg)
Photo: Quran Karim
First a warning. Caveat Emptor. Buyer beware. Providing an exegesis of a Quranic verse is an ambitious task for a layman such as me, and I am unqualified. Everything right and true is from Allah, not from Al Azhar, not from Al Jazeera, not from Al Qaida, but from Allah. If there is wisdom in my words, and those words ring true for you, it is by His Will. It is my opinion that Believers should form their own opinion. So, test what I say in the laboratory of your own nervous system. If you independently agree with me, alhamdullillah, but don’t be pointing at me on The Last Day. In that context … this is the perfect verse to be discussing.
2:256 "There shall be no compulsion in religion: Truth has become distinct from error, and whoever rejects false deities and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold, which never dbreaks. And Allah is Hearing, Knowing."
The placement of this verse in the Quran remarkable. It immediately follows Ayatul Kursi, which is the most read, most widely memorized, and most prolifically displayed verse in the Quran. So, this statement regarding compulsion is imbedded within potent statements on creed. It may be the only verse of its kind, but clearly Allah intended it to be well known… and therefore well understood.The only published explanations of this verse that I can find are concerned entirely with prohibiting forced conversion. This is a reaction formation to attacks against Islam regarding how it spread historically. It is not an actionable interpretation by Muslims for Muslims. They do not discuss the implications of prohibiting coercion in other matters. So, I’ve done a little processing and I’d like to decompress the issue as I see it.
Allah is not careless with words. This sentence is only four words. La Ikrah fi deen. "No compulsion in religion." Every scholar I’ve ever heard discuss the word deen says that "religion" is a poor translation, and that deen is a complete and comprehensive way of life. Why would Allah use a word that means a complete way of life to describe a truth that only applies to a very specific instance? Could He not have said, “No compulsion in dawah?”
The verse is a logical syllogism. Statements of evidense that support a premise. The Quran is often constructed in this format, and this appeal to reason is what makes it distinct from other scriptures. Over and over Allah tells us, “Will you not use reason?” and that He despises those who don’t. “The worst of creatures in the sight of Allah are the deaf and dumb who do not use their intellect to understand.” (8:22) So, let’s break down the syllogism.Given that Allah is omniscient, that tawhid is virtuous, and that Truth is distinct from error, therefore religion must be free from coercion.
Reason dictates that any instance where the evidence is true the conclusion must also be true, and the evidence presented is true in all instances, therefore the premise MUST be true in all instances. It cannot be true for conversion and false for other matters. How can the premise be abrogated when the supporting evidence remains? This is the principle of nonaggression. “Surely, Allah loves not the aggressors” (2:190) i.e. the initiators of coercion.
The principle of nonaggression is a deep and fundamental Truth in human interaction. Actions which are coerced have no moral value. You can openly profess disbelief, or even shirk without sin if it’s under coercion. And the aim of Islam is to place moral value in every action… so how can coercion be virtuous?
The simplicity and profundity of the nonaggression principle are, I believe, the keystone to solving the strife in Muslim countries, and indeed the world. So two fundamental questions exist concerning the meaning of this verse. What is compulsion, and what does it mean that Truth is clear from Error?As far as I can tell, the Arabic word Ikrah is accurately translated as “compulsion” with very little loss of meaning, except that the root word in Arabic is the same root as "hatred" which does expand the implication. Compulsion is the use, or the threat of coercive force to cause someone to act against their will. Generally, people consider this the use or threatened use of bodily harm, and some include in this definition threats made to a person’s wealth and property.
The Truth is not so clear that people cannot continue to deny and distort Islam, as they have since its first days, even in the light of this verse. But, it is so clear that the majority of people who study it and consider it with sincerity eventually come to believe it, even its most emboldened enemies. Here lies the fulcrum on which clarity and compulsion turn… sincerity. Sincerity reveals clarity, and compulsion obfuscates sincerity. Therefore sincerity and compulsion must be inversely correlated, and as one waxes the other must wane. So, the two are incompatible.
Let me put it this way… if an Arab flies from Arabia to America and the moment he leaves Saudi air space he has a glass of wine, he doesn’t get credit for not drinking in Arabia, because in his heart of hearts he was abstaining out of state coercion, not out of obedience to Allah. In other words, if you are praying because there is a gun to your head, you are not obeying Allah, you are obeying the gunman.
It is my contention that if we carry this verse to its logical conclusion it means much more than a religion without coercion. A deen without coercion means politics without coercion. It means personal relationships without coercion. It means a comprehensive way of life without coercion. So, just as Islamic theology should be characterized by open debate and a free market of ideas, an Islamic order should be characterized by political liberty, and the Islamic family should be characterized freedom of association.
The shahada is not the source of authority in an Islamic order. The bayah of the citizens is the source. Bayah is a voluntary interaction, not a coercive one. It is a contract by which the individual and the Amir have mutual rights and responsibilities based upon the shariah. The Amir does not have arbitrary authority to enforce their interpretation of virtuous behavior. The authority that your spouse has in a marriage is no different. The source of that authority is the nikah, also a voluntary interaction. It is a contract by which a man and a woman have mutual rights and responsibilities based upon the Shariah. Neither has arbitrary authority to enforce their interpretation of virtuous behavior on the other.
Comments
Welcome to Examiner.com, Davi! Thanks for writing your insights about this important & oft-quoted verse. I look forward to reading more and perhaps exchanging emails about Islamic concepts in the future. Take care!
It hinges on definitions of the words involved. The Koran offers gigantic loopholes. For example, the often-repeated PR slogan that claims Islam regards the killing of one man as equal to the killing of all humanity, has that gaping loophole that makes an exception for killing those who "commit mischief." Let us not forget, mischief can include things like talking, drawing, and being born gay.
In the case of your translated excerpt "no compulsion in religion," it can be taken to mean that once someone steps outside of the dictates of religion, then, and only then, does compulsion come into play. If I think someone is not following the religion, then I (or some authority) can, according to the loophole, try to compel them to do what I want them to do.
I've given just one example of how a loophole could be constructed in this case. You can no doubt think of many others.
Hmmm, I wonder if Islam forbids compulsory education?
Robert, I look foreword to future conversations.
Mark, Thank you for your comment. I don't know how to answer your point about "mischief." I'd have to know the verse, and examine the Arabic. As I said before, I'm no scholar. I'm just an individual who believes in the free market of ideas. Maybe it's a topic for a future article. I hope that doesn't sound like PR slogans. I believe what I'm aiming to show about compulsion, in this and future articles, is unprecedented. And I'd appreciate your thoughts as we move along.
I'm afraid I don't understand your second point. Maybe you can explain it another way, or give me an example of compulsion outside of Islam that is similar. The example that comes to mind is income tax. The government calls it a voluntary, but if you refuse the guns come out. I think any rational individual recognizes this as a lie. I believe compulsion is also the threat of force.
I'm argueing that no compulsion is moral. And education in on my list. Stay tuned.
The verse is 5:32 and the word you should look at is hirabah (?????). It (mischief, very loosely translated) includes such things as direct or indirect hostility toward Islam or Muslims.
My second point was just an expansion of what I said at the beginning, that it all hinges on definitions of words. Both the word "compulsion" and the word "religion" as you put it can be redefined and recontextualized by any authority to please their whims. Such is the way of religion. Once you are in its grip, you will have to be very bold to escape.
Mark, Excellent, thank you. I think that’s the verse Sussman believes was a secret code to the Jihadists in Obama’s Cairo speech. I’m out of my element here, but I’ve looked up “hirabah” and discovered the root word is “harb” which means “war.” The way Arabic works the extended meanings carry the subject or connotation of the root word. To perpetrate a war is a violation of the principle of non aggression. So that actually supports my thesis that initiating violence is immoral.
But I’d much rather talk about you. It seems your hostility is not with me, or with Islam, but with religion itself. I’m basing this on your “fairy god in the sky” comment, and your point here about definitions. It seems to me that everything, not only religion, can be redefined by the whims of bogus authorities. Look at the Bill of Rights. Does government earn your anger? Arguing against violence to someone openly against violence seems strange. Can your tell me something about your history with religion?
You don't need religion to argue against violence. I find it a ludicrous idea that morals sprang forth from religion, and that they didn't exist before religion. As the ads on the London buses say: "There probably is no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
My history? I'm just an average person who is annoyed by disingenuous discourse -- not pointing to you in particular, but to the tenuous positions often taken by those who profess to be believers. And some religions are more irksome than others. Islam would be one of those, for among other reasons its mealy-mouthed dancing around the points when its certitude is challenged.
Mark, I don't believe you need religion to be moral. I believe humans are born pure and virtuous. In fact the word "religion" rarely enters my thinking. I do believe you need a way of life free from violence to be moral.
I've never seen the London buses. But "probably" compared to what? I actually do enjoy my life, with worries similar to most people that I don't think atheism would solve.
It seems to me that you've already accepted the premise that other people need to tell you what something means to you. Now your upset by what they've told you, and likely sought someone who said things you liked. Otherwise why would it matter what bogus authorities assert?
I personally don't believe in certainty without doubt. That's just unexamined irrational preference. I don't intend to avoid hard questions, but I also don't have perfect knowledge, and can't speak for anyone but myself. And it's hard to address things in full in 1000 characters or less.
I really liked the article, never though about this aspect of the verse.
Wow. ur an islamic newbie. Research abrogation naskh in Arabic.
Under the doctrine of naskh, the verse u quote has been abroagated by the verse of the sword:
9:5 When the sacred months are over slay the infidels wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.
I do not believe in abrogation. That's not my opinion, but the opinion of the Shaikhs I study with. Still, I'm glad you brought up 9:5. I'm working on an article on that subject but the short answer is that this refers to the Treaty of Hudaibiyah, a peace treaty with the pagans (Not infidels, mushriks and kufar are different. Are you using the NJ Danwood translation?). The treaty was violated by Benu Bakr who attacked the Muslims during the sacred months. This does not refer to all pagans, as becomes clear when one reads the verses before and after it - 9:4 “The treaties are not dissolved with those pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you." - 9:6 “If one amongst the pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.”
no compulsion in Islam?
hogwash. Islam is an enfored religion. in many countries it is a crime to convert to Christianity or other faiths. If people were permitted to leave Islam, thousands would leave, just like thousands have left Catholicism/Christianity.
Welcome to the conversation Robert. If you're interested, I've written two pieces on apostasy and I invite you to share your thoughts on the subject there.
Obviously there is no denying that compulsion exists in Muslim majority countries. And I believe you are correct that some would reject Islam were it not for the compulsion in those lands. But I also believe a great many more people would accept Islam were it not for all the fear mongering and misinformation that people spread. As I described above, Truth is clear from error. I believe in a Free Market of ideas Islam would thrive.
That being said, what I'm describing here is a kind of Platonic ideal, not necessarily what actually happens in the world, where ignorance, prejudice and corruption often win the day. I know a few people who have left Islam without incident, but if someone were to threaten them I would defend them, physically if necessary.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!