Let there be no compulsion in religion

[LuisDantas]

They have neglected the Quran

Aren't they claiming the same about those who disagree with their take?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Hello Adrian.

It is estimated that around 18% of the world’s 1.8 billion Muslims live in countries that permit the killing of apostates. I have no idea what percentage of this minority are eager to abandon Islam; and would rush to do so, were it not for fear of reprisal. But let’s be clear: If only one disaffected Muslim – just the one – is killed for leaving the Faith, then that is one too many.

The answer to your question is ‘No’.

Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) says: ‘As for those who believe, then reject the faith, then believe again, then reject the faith again and become increasingly defiant, Allāh will not forgive them, nor will He guide them on any path. (Prophet), tell such hypocrites that a grievous punishment awaits them.’ (Al-Nisa: 137-138).

If death is the ordained punishment for apostasy, then why do these verses not say so? Indeed, they are made a nonsense by the notion that anyone who rejects the faith must be killed; for how can a dead person accept what he once rejected; reject it again; and grow in defiance?!!

Although the Qur’an speaks of apostasy more than a dozen times; nowhere does it authorise an earthly punishment for abandoning faith. On the contrary, Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) reserves for Himself the right to judge such behaviour; and to do so on the Day of Judgement.

Some would have us believe that the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) required the death sentence for apostasy. In order to buttress their claim these folk refer to a number of aḥādīth; the best known is this:

‘Ibn Abbas said: The Messenger of Allah said, “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.”’ (Sahih Al-Bukhari).

I opine that the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) said no such thing; and that this ḥādīth – and others like it – was fabricated to support corrupt rulers and governments; and is now being employed for that very purpose.

Here are my reasons:

The Qur’an was revealed over twenty-three years. At no time was the Prophet given permission to judge, or to execute, apostates. On the contrary, the Qur’an makes it perfectly clear that his role was to convey the message – to preach and teach the Faith, as expressed in the Qur’an – and nothing more. He was NOT to impose it by force:

‘Allāh bears witness that there is no god but He, as do the angels and those who have knowledge. He upholds justice. There is no god but Him, the Almighty, the All Wise. True Religion, in Allāh’s eyes, is islam (devotion to Him alone). Those who were given the Scripture disagreed out of rivalry, only after they had been given knowledge - if anyone denies Allāh’s revelations, Allāh is swift to take account- if they argue with you (Prophet), say: “I have devoted myself to Allāh alone and so have my followers.”

‘Ask those who were given the Scripture, as well as those without one: “Do you too devote yourselves to Him alone?” If they do, they will be guided, but if they turn away, YOUR ONLY DUTY IS TO CONVEY THE MESSAGE. Allāh is aware of His servants.’ (Al-‘Imran: 18-20; my emphasis).

And again: ‘Obey Allāh, obey the Messenger, and always be on your guard: if you pay no heed, bear in mind that the SOLE DUTY of Our Messenger is to DELIVER THE MESSAGE clearly.’ (Al-Ma’ida: 92; my emphasis).

And again: ‘(Prophet), follow what has been revealed to you of your Lord’s Scripture: there is no changing His words, nor can you find any refuge except with Him. Content yourself with those who pray to their Lord morning and evening, seeking His approval, and do not let your eyes turn away from them out of desire for the attractions of this worldly life: do not yield to those whose hearts We have made heedless of Our Qur’an, those who follow their own low desires, those whose ways are unbridled. Say: “Now the truth has come from your Lord”: let those who wish to believe in it do so, and let those who wish to reject it do so.’ (Al-Kahf: 29).

The Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) was given no authority to enforce belief; no authority to kill a person simply for changing his religion. Given the restrictions placed upon him by his Lord, it is unthinkable that he would assume authority for himself – that he would usurp the Exalted’s role as sole judge in this matter. This is why I discount all aḥādīth that suggest the contrary (and by the way, I am not a Qur’anist!). My argument is supported by the fact that the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) did not order the death of a single person for apostasy alone.

As you know, the Qur’an stresses freedom of conscience as one of Islam’s fundamental tenets:

‘There is no compulsion in religion: true guidance has become distinct from error, so whoever rejects false gods and believes in Allāh has grasped the firmest hand-hold, one that will never break. Allāh is all hearing and all knowing. Allāh is the ally of those who believe: He brings them out of the depths of darkness and into the light.’ (Al-Baqara: 256-257).

Muhammad Abdel Haleem writes: ‘This verse begins with the phrase lā ikrāha fī’l-dīn (there is no compulsion in religion). It is introduced by ‘lā’, the particle of absolute negation in Arabic, which negates absolutely the notion of compulsion in religion. Religion in the Qur’an is based on choice, and true choice is based on knowledge and making matters clear for people to choose. The rest of the ‘there is no compulsion in religion’ verse gives reasons justifying and explaining this.’ (‘Exploring the Qur'an: Context and Impact’).

Apostasy laws are enforced for political rather than religious reasons. Autocratic religious states (and organisations) have always used the threat of punishment as a means of control. When the Church was a power to be reckoned with – when it controlled every aspect of a believer’s life – it did not hesitate to punish apostasy (and heresy) with death.

Only when the Church lost its secular powers were people free to think, and to do, as they pleased.

All Muslims consider the Qur’an to be the very the word of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla). This is why it is considered to be the primary and supreme source of jurisprudence in Islam. The Sunnah (the practice of Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) comes next. Both leave no doubt that apostasy – of itself – is not punishable by death. The only justification for punishing an apostate is when that person goes on to commit a criminal offence – such as murder; theft; treason or some form of war crime.

Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) says this: ‘For the (Muslim) believers, the Jews, the Sabians, and the Christians – those who believe in Allāh and the Last Day and do good deeds – there is no fear: they will not grieve.’ (Al-Ma’ida 69).

Puritans claim that this verse has been abrogated by the following:

‘If anyone seeks a religion other than complete devotion to Allāh, it will not be accepted from him: he will be one of the losers in the Hereafter.’ (Al‘Imran: 85).

The words ‘complete devotion’ are a rendition of ‘islam’; a word that is never capitalised in Arabic. This word can also be rendered ‘submission’ (cf. Al-‘Imran: 18-20; above).

Puritans take the word ‘religion’, and then capitalise ‘islam’; giving the impression that the verse refers to that particular Faith alone. They argue that Islam is the only religion acceptable to Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla). At the same time, they claim (correctly) that Islam is not merely a ‘religion’, but a way of life. But so are Christianity and Judaism (and all other religions, too, of course). And the best ‘way of life’ is one spent in complete devotion to God.

Al‘Imran: 85 can safely be rendered: ‘If anyone seeks a way of life other than complete devotion to Allāh, it will not be accepted from him: he will be one of the losers in the Hereafter.’

It amuses me to see Islamophobes and Muslim extremists at odds with the Qur’an on the matter of apostasy. In order to portray their own perverted theological, or political, viewpoint both go to great lengths to misrepresent its clear verses. Both regurgitate the same fallacious arguments, and offer them as ‘authentic’ Islam.

Khaled M. Abou El Fadl writes:

‘What type of arrogance permits a people to name themselves God’s soldiers and then usurp His authority? What type of arrogance empowers a people to inject their insecurities and hatred into the Book of God, and then fancy themselves the divine protectors? Of all the sins of this world, what can be more revolting than usurping God’s Word, and then misrepresenting God’s meticulous Speech?’ (‘The Search for Beauty in Islam: A Conference of the Books’).

Apostasy laws have been borrowed from older scriptures. They have no basis in the Qur’an or Sunnah. This is why clerics who espouse such extremist beliefs show continued reluctance to debate Muslim scholars and intellectuals on this issue.

Have a great day!

Thank you, well put together a good reply.

Regards Tony

 

[Shad]

There is certainly a strong trend among Muslims of hoping or expecting that Islaam will be convincing in and of itself once it is learned of.

That isn't really unique. What I find ironic is the flip/flopping when someone is not convinced. Suddenly they need a book full of expertise such as the old "know Arabic canard"

The Qur'an supports that hope, when it establishes in no uncertain terms that lack of awareness of Islaam is one reason not to punish "kuffar". But it provides precious little, arguably nothing whatsoever, to establish how to treat people who just won't be Muslims.

It does not as like most religions it has author's never considered people never converting.

That is noteworthy, given the legalist tendencies of the Qur'an and the huge extent to which talks about how to treat other people and specifically non-Muslims. It even has the habit of categorizing people according to the degree of adherence to Abrahamic beliefs and to the Qur'an, down to the civic rights and taxation duties.

Following that it goes to monotheism religions which are not Abrahamic. If one is a polytheist they treated even worse.

There are those who claim that "apostasy" is not specifically denoted as worth of physical punishment by the Qur'an, but plenty disagree, as evidenced by the existence of such punishment in many real Muslim communities. But even leaving that aside, there is no ambiguity whatsoever in the Quranic verses in stating that "leaving Faith" is not just wrong but very much worth of some form of punishment.

As most religions think are the truth leaving the faith is like thinking the sky is pink

As one would expect, those verses (as the Qur'an as whole, really) don't really attempt to acknowledge any nuance between losing faith in Allah, in the Qur'an, in the status of Muhammad as a Prophet, in Religion as a whole, in Islaam or even in the value of morality itself.

Hadith deals with that.

The Qur'an is simply not interested in such fine points; the message is clear and decisive that any good person ought to accept Islaam once given a fair opportunity of learning of it, and is definitely misguided if he or she decides not to.

It is a standard religious tripe.

It is anyone's guess how the average Muslim reconciles that attitude with the first half of Surah 2:256, and how that feat was historically accomplished through time and various cultures. But from the available evidence, it is only fair to say that "not very well" is a good descriptor.

This happens with religious indoctrination.

One would certainly be hard-pressed to find a clear, elaborate piece on what that supposed absence of compulsion in religion means for Islaam.

Especially given history.

We are apparently to learn of the verse and be satisfied, just like that, and focus our attention on the hope and expectation that non-Muslims will freely adopt Islaam at every turn, simply because they are given the means to.

Do not ask questions! Again it is a standard religious tripe.

 

[firedragon]

Aren't they claiming the same about those who disagree with their take?

No they never did.

 

[Dawnofhope]

A problem here is that even thought the text states "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error", it then explicitly states that "the truth" is belief in Allah, and seems to equate nonbelief with "evil." In one fell swoop it opens up the discussion about non-compulsory religious belief and then makes a statement that ATTEMPTS TO COMPEL THE READER.

There’s a world of difference between trying to convince another about what is true based on reason as opposed to coercion by violence.

 

[LuisDantas]

No they never did.

With all due respect, that is flat out unbelievable.

 

[LuisDantas]

That isn't really unique. What I find ironic is the flip/flopping when someone is not convinced. Suddenly they need a book full of expertise such as the old "know Arabic canard"



It does not as like most religions it has author's never considered people never converting.



Following that it goes to monotheism religions which are not Abrahamic. If one is a polytheist they treated even worse.



As most religions think are the truth leaving the faith is like thinking the sky is pink



Hadith deals with that.



It is a standard religious tripe.



This happens with religious indoctrination.



Especially given history.



Do not ask questions! Again it is a standard religious tripe.

I suppose that it is usually perceived as typical religious behavior.

Not by me, though. In hindsight it is quite remarkable that so many people give such a wide berth to those dangerous attitudes.

One day people will study the past and point with determination towards Islaam as a major, even decisive reason for the rapid deterioration of the reputation of "religion".

 

[firedragon]

With all due respect, that is flat out unbelievable.

Of course.

 

[LuisDantas]

Of course.

Yes, indeed.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

There’s a world of difference between trying to convince another about what is true based on reason as opposed to coercion by violence.

Never said their wasn't. The idea here, however, is that the passage says that belief should not be compulsory/mandatory/obligatory - and then basically does a "but, if you want to be right, and get right with God, and do the right thing then..." I find it patently ridiculous. It is no different than the person that says "Now I'm not racist, but..." and then follows up with some judgmental statement based on race.

"Look, I'm not going to tell you what you have to believe, but if you want to be on the right side of this 'faith' thing, want to earn Allah's favor and have a nice afterlife, and don't want to be a godless, undeserving infidel, then you'll believe what I tell you."
- The Quran

From my experience, when people see flowery language and artfully worded phrases, they seem to think it automatically means that there is wisdom to be found in the words, or that the words are innocuous, or even helpful. This is not necessarily the case. If I had to guess - most people who have been tricked by artful deceivers experienced the deceiver whispering the sweetest of words into their ears.

 

[Niblo]

Thank you, well put together a good reply.

Regards Tony

Hi Tony.

That's very kind. Thank you.

I trust you are well and happy.

Very best regards.

Paul

PS: You may have noticed that I carefully avoided any mention (to Adrain) of the All Blacks gently easing Wales into 4th place at the recent Rugby World Cup. As someone once said: You never defeat the Welsh....you merely score more points than they do.

 

[Shad]

I suppose that it is usually perceived as typical religious behavior.

Not by me, though. In hindsight it is quite remarkable that so many people give such a wide berth to those dangerous attitudes.

It more about the backlash from the PC mob that places Islam in a victim hierarchy.

[One day people will study the past and point with determination towards Islaam as a major, even decisive reason for the rapid deterioration of the reputation of "religion".

Probably. When this happens is the question.

 

[LuisDantas]

It more about the backlash from the PC mob that places Islam in a victim hierarchy.

As it happens, I consider myself a part of the "PC mob". And sure enough, I used to assume a certain degree of coherence and wisdom from Islaam, only to learn better as I researched and listened to facts as opposed to hopes and reasonable expectations.

Now I realize that, weird as it sounds, an unqualified mention of "religion" may easily mean "something to be respected" for some people and "something to be allowed to die mercifully" for others. Using the word by itself confuses the waters instead of clarifying anything.

Alas, far too many religionists have taken an accomodated, arrogant, self-important stance for that to be avoided. All the same, it is bizarre and embarrassing that it did.

Islaam, if it is to be considered a religion at all, and despite having so many enthusiastic and influential adherents, is no typical religion. I don't think that it can even be said to be functional at all, let alone a functional religion. It is definitely unusual when compared to random religions, or even the Bahai Faith that so zealously protects it, Christianity and Judaism.

Probably. When this happens is the question.

I would very much like to see it happen soon enough for the word to be rehabilitated. But that window of opportunity may well be gone already.

 

[Shad]

As it happens, I consider myself a part of the "PC mob". And sure enough, I used to assume a certain degree of coherence and wisdom from Islaam, only to learn better as I researched and listened to facts as opposed to hopes and reasonable expectations.

Given some of your views I do not think we view "PC mob" the same way or you have left the mob.

Now I realize that, weird as it sounds, an unqualified mention of "religion" may easily mean "something to be respected" for some people and "something to be allowed to die mercifully" for others. Using the word by itself confuses the waters instead of clarifying anything.

I guess.

Alas, far too many religionists have taken an accomodated, arrogant, self-important stance for that to be avoided. All the same, it is bizarre and embarrassing that it did.

Religion creates this. After all many religions claim to be truth.

It is only embarrassing when people change their views regarding the "truth" of a religion.

Islaam, if it is to be considered a religion at all, and despite having so many enthusiastic and influential adherents, is no typical religion. I don't think that it can even be said to be functional at all, let alone a functional religion. It is definitely unusual when compared to random religions, or even the Bahai Faith that so zealously protects it, Christianity and Judaism.

Bahai have no power. Yet if you look at some members here they show the same arrogance other religions' followers do. Christianity has been defanged after centuries of conflict. Judaism has it's issues with politics which is probably one of the biggest problem with a lot of Muslims

I would very much like to see it happen soon enough for the word to be rehabilitated. But that window of opportunity may well be gone already.

I think there is a chance for those in the West that are not under the thumb of state sponsored Islam with religious figures with state power

 

[LuisDantas]

Given some of your views I do not think we view "PC mob" the same way or you have left the mob.

Or maybe I must exert my grip again to keep my peers on line. Or something.

I guess.



Religion creates this. After all many religions claim to be truth.

It is only embarrassing when people change their views regarding the "truth" of a religion.



Bahai have no power. Yet if you look at some members here they show the same arrogance other religions' followers do. Christianity has been defanged after centuries of conflict. Judaism has it's issues with politics which is probably one of the biggest problem with a lot of Muslims




I think there is a chance for those in the West that are not under the thumb of state sponsored Islam with religious figures with state power

You are extrapolating from the Abrahamics, and that is something that I am keen to avoid.

 

[Shad]

Or maybe I must exert my grip again to keep my peers on line. Or something.

Nah I think you are not part of the PC mob. PC is about not causing offense. You have no issues with causing offense.

You are extrapolating from the Abrahamics, and that is something that I am keen to avoid.

Yes as it is those are relevant religions. I have never encountered a Hindu with the same arrogance as YEC or other creationists of the well known Abrahamic religions.

 

[LuisDantas]

Nah I think you are not part of the PC mob. PC is about not causing offense. You have no issues with causing offense.

Actually I do. It just happens that that is not always decisive. Usually, but not always.

Yes as it is those are relevant religions. I have never encountered a Hindu with the same arrogance as YEC or other creationists of the well known Abrahamic religions.

They exist, but they are not typical.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I appreciate the contribution of @Niblo and @firedragon two Muslims who are clear apostasy laws are not supported by the Quran, indeed clearly contradict the Quran.

It is clear to me a God that allows free will in regards belief would not advocate compulsion in regards belief. The religion I have chosen and the religion I grew up with (the Baha’i Faith and Christianity) have no apostasy laws. Of course there has been a long history of coercion within Christianity with heresy trials and the like which have some parallels with apostasy.

So the statement by Muhammad “Let there be no compulsion” in religion appears a fundamental principle. It would be interesting to hear from Muslims who believe in the validity of apostasy laws that promote a range of punishments including death.

The whole issue raises many questions as I seek to better understand Islam and history.

1/ According of the Quran, is it a sin to leave Islam? Is so, what should be the attitude of Muslims towards one who has previously been a Muslim and becomes a Christian, Baha’i or atheist?

2/ How extensive is the belief in apostasy laws in Islam? We can easily list the countries who have apostasy laws but how prevalent are views amongst Muslims that legitimise apostasy laws?

3/ Given belief in apostasy laws is so widespread in Islam, what are the justifications from the Quran, Sunnah and Hadiths for and against apostasy. Its clearly a fiercely debated topic in Islam amongst scholars and jurists.

If anyone wishes to address these questions that would be excellent. There have been some great contributions to this thread that I really appreciate. Peace.

 

[stvdv]

In the Holy Quran it is written:
Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
— trans. Yusuf Ali, Quran 2:256

Al-Baqara 256 - Wikipedia
To me that would mean one is free to accept or reject religion including Islam without coercion. Yet apostasy laws exist in some Islamic countries where leaving Islam is a crime punishable by death. So what did Muhammad mean when He said let there be no compulsion in religion and why? Are apostasy laws based on the Quran?

IMHO: Koran is quite simple if you apply Koran verse 3:07

 

[Milton Platt]

No. What I'm saying is when we analyse a verse from scripture we need to consider its context within history, scripture and comparative religion. Osama bin Laden was a hateful man who used verses from the Quran to justify his perverse agenda. We could use exactly the same verses in a similar manner to criticise Muhammad for not providing laws suited to our modern era.

Exactly. So in the end, various verses will be interpreted in numerous ways, depending upon the bias of the interpreter, the education level of the interpreter, etc. Makes them kinda sloppy, doesn't it.