What “no compulsion in religion” really means according to the classical Islamic scholars
Other than “Whoever kills a man, it is as if he has killed all of mankind” which I have done a full piece on (linked below), the second verse our Muslim friends use to tell us that Islam is a religion of peace is that the Quran says,
“There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path.”
(Surah 2:256)
If the Quran itself says Islam should never force itself upon people and people should be free to practise any religion of their choice whether Islam or not, then how can anyone say Islam is violent and that people who kill in the name of the religion or force others to submit to its dictates are practising the true Islam?
The truth is, if all the Quran said was that if you kill a person, it is as if you have killed all of mankind and that there should be no compulsion in religion then there would be an air tight shut case for peaceful Islam. If Islam itself did not spread by violence and warfare, then anyone who kills and compels people to bow to Islam would be practicing a perversion of Islam. However, the Quran says many other things besides “no compulsion in religion”, most relevant of which,
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture — [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.”
(Surah 9:29)
And again,
“O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination.”
(Surah 9:73)
Not only that, we also have Muhammad in the hadith saying,
“Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.”
(Sahih Bukhari Book 8 Hadith 44)
There is also the story of the conversion of Abu Sufyan in Sirat Rasul Allah,
“Abu Sufyan] stayed the night with me [the narrator] and I took him in to see the apostle early in the morning and when he saw him he said, “Isn’t it time that you should recognize that there is no God but Allah?”
He answered, “You are dearer to me than father and mother. How great is your clemence, honour, and kindness! By God, I thought that had there been another God with God he would have continued to help me.”
He said: “Woe to you, Abu Sufyan, isn’t it time that you recognize that I am God’s apostle?”
He answered, “As to that I still have some doubt.”
I said to him, “Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of God before you lose your head,” and he did so”
(Ibn Ishaq, page 547)
So the problem to a serious student of the Quran becomes obvious. On the one hand, we have orders to fight the unbelievers and Muhammad being commanded to fight people until they convert and converting people to Islam on the pain of a sword, on the other hand, we have Allah saying there is no compulsion in religion. What gives?!
This is exactly the context within which Islam’s earliest scholars and exegetes sought to interpret the “No compulsion in religion” verse. As is no surprise to anybody who knows anything about Allah’s very clear book, there is disagreement of opinion on how to apply the verse, as such I will reproduce and briefly analyse the major opinions below.
The first opinion is that “No compulsion in religion” has been abrogated by the command to fight. In essence Surah 9 abrogates Surah 2. For the uninitiated, “abrogation” is a principle based on Surah 2:106 to the effect that later revelations could cancel, repeal and replace earlier ones.
The key scholars holding this opinion are none other than Ibn Kathir himself and Al Wahidi. Ibn Kathir says in his commentary on surah 2:256,
“Allah said, (There is no compulsion in religion), meaning, “Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty. Whoever Allah blinds his heart and seals his hearing and sight, then he will not benefit from being forced to embrace Islam.’’
However, very conveniently, there is a portion of Ibn Kathir’s commentary that was not translated into English (I wonder why), he goes on to say,
“But, this verse is abrogated by the verse of “fighting…Therefore, all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the Jizya they should be fought till they are killed. This is the meaning of compulsion. In the Sahih, the Prophet said: “Allah wonders at those people who will enter Paradise in chains”, meaning prisoners brought in chains to the Islamic state, then they embrace Islam sincerely and become righteous, and are entered among the people of Paradise”
Al-Wahidi, the author of the famous Asbab Al-Nuzul (Reason behind the revelation) also holds this view when he says in his commentary,
“ …This was before the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, was commanded to fight the people of the Book. But then Allah’s saying (There is no compulsion in religion…) was abrogated and the Prophet was commanded to fight the people of the Book in Surah Repentance”…”
The problem with this position is of course obvious. If “No compulsion” has been overruled in favour of “fight the people” then we cannot call Islam a religion of peace anymore can we? This peaceful “no compulsion” verse thus goes in the trash can and becomes irrelevant.
The second opinion on “No compulsion in religion” is that it applies to people who have been fought as commanded in Surah 9 and are paying the Jizya (forced tribute paid to Muslim overlords as acknowledgement of their superiority and an acknowledgment of debasement or disgrace in relation to them). So once somebody is paying the Jizyah, you do not compel them to convert to Islam any more.
This is one of the opinions recognised by Qurtubi and held by Ibn Abbas and Tabari. Issue here is again very obvious. Surah 9:29 commands Muslims to fight people based on their religious belief (fight those who do not believe in Allah and his messenger…) till they are subjugated and pay the Jizya. Then at that point, you then apply the principle of no compulsion in religion. Is it not too late for that? Is the reason I am paying Jizya in the first place not because I have been compelled to do so on the basis of my religion? Secondly, even this “non-compulsion” according to the Muslim logic is not a noble or altruistic one. It is in the interest of Muslims NOT to convert a person paying Jizya so that the money can keep coming in. Remember the Jizya is Allah’s scheme to enrich his followers (Surah 9:28).
Another opinion related by Qurtubi is that this verse means that you do not call people who have been converted by the sword “compelled”. Again, this is classic Islam, you just call something that is clearly one thing, something else or refuse to call something that is clearly something, what it is. An example would be Mut’ah. An arrangement where you pay a woman for a period of sex, we would call that prostitution but Islam calls it temporary marriage. Problem here is we can refuse to call conversion by the sword compulsion but it does not change the fact that it is compulsion.
A fourth opinion on the “no compulsion verse” is that it was revealed in the context of slaves of the people of the book (i.e. Christian and Jewish slaves). Slaves of other religions could be compelled to accept Islam and children who have no faith could also be compelled to accept Islam. This was the opinion of Malik. Again, this would mean there is some kind of compulsion in religion just not against people of the book so to say there is no compulsion in religion particularly to a society of atheists is just not true. In an ideal Islamic setting, the atheists would be captured and made to convert to Islam.
A fifth opinion, also related by Qurtubi, is that it was revealed in this context;
“As-Suddi said that the ayat was revealed about a man of the Ansar called Abu Husayn who had two sons. Some merchants came from Syria to Madina with oil and when they wanted to leave, his sons went to them. They invited the two sons to become Christians and they did so and went back with them to Syria. Their father went to the Messenger of Allah to complain about this and asked the Messenger of Allah to send someone to bring them back. Then, “There is no compulsion where the din is concerned” was revealed. He had not been commanded to fight the People of the Book. He said, “Allah has put them far. They are the first to disbelieve.” Abu’l-Husayn felt annoyed that the Prophet did not send someone after them. Then Allah revealed, “No, by your Lord, they are not believers until they make you their judge in the disputes that break out between them” (4:65). Then “No compulsion” was abrogated and he was commanded to fight the People of the Book in Surat at-Tawba.”
Again, this opinion recognizes that even in its original context, it was eventually abrogated. There is an alternative view as well on the context of its revelation,
“It was reported that the Ansar were the reason behind revealing this Ayah, although its indication is general in meaning. Ibn Jarir recorded that Ibn `Abbas said [that before Islam], “When (an Ansar) woman would not bear children who would live, she would vow that if she gives birth to a child who remains alive, she would raise him as a Jew. When Banu An-Nadir (the Jewish tribe) were evacuated [from Al-Madinah], some of the children of the Ansar were being raised among them, and the Ansar said, `We will not abandon our children.’ Allah revealed,
(There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the right path has become distinct from the wrong path.)”
Issue here is that the prophet was commenting on a state of affairs that happened prior to Islam. But this is the main problem with this fifth opinion, and it is one of consistency.
What do our Muslim friends tell us when we cite Surah 9:5 (Kill them wherever you find them) or 9:29–31 (cited above) or Muhammad’s hadith that he has been commanded to fight the people until become Muslim? They say “It was for a specific time in history and within a specific place!”. Now, I do not agree (and neither do the hundreds of Islamic terrorist organisations around the world) but let me grant that for a second. Question is, why do our Muslim friends not say the same thing about “No compulsion in religion!”? Clearly that was only applicable to the pre Islamic times in the second view of the context or to that Syrian merchant and his son in the first context? But of course not! Because it sounds like it makes Islam look positive, that command becomes a universal one to be applied for all time but when we talk of the war verses, they are for a specific time and a specific place, what kind of hypocrisy is this?
Finally, there is also the small problem of apostasy. Muhammad says,
“Ibn ‘Abbas said:
“The Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: ‘Whoever changes his religion, kill him.’”
(Sunan An-Nasai Book 37 hadith 94)
If there is no compulsion in religion, why is there a death sentence for leaving the religion of Islam?
So what have we learnt?
Our Muslim friends today pretend Surah 2:256 is the default state of Islam and that it preaches freedom of religion and tolerance for other religions. They pretend Surah 9 does not exist. The early scholars of Islam however had to grapple with how to square Surah 2:256 with the command to fight in Surah 9, which tells us Surah 9 is the default if Muslims are able to do so. The true Islamic position is summed up nicely by one scholar,
“The command to fight the infidels was delayed until the Muslims become strong, but when they were weak they were commanded to endure and be patient.”
When Muslims cannot wage war on the infidel, they are commanded to be peaceful but believe you me, Muslims who take the religion seriously (not your friend Ahmed who has never opened the Quran in his life but grows a beard and wants to get along with the infidel) are looking forward to the day they can implement Surah 9:29. This is why Islam itself spread by Surah 9:29, not by Surah 2:256.
Also consider reading:
