Alleged Abrogation of 2:256

[Hijrah]

:sl:

I was reading Ibn Kathir's Tafsir about the Verse: Let there be No Compulsion in Acceptance of Religion

According to him, this verse has been abrogated by several verses such as: Strive against the unbelievers and be harsh against them

And he even said we are to wage global Jihad until everyone pays Jizyah or accepts Islam

So why is it that such promient scholars are quoting this verse if this is true?..

If this is true how can we tell everyone that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance?

[searchingsoul]

I too would like an answer. Good question.

[S_87]

:sl:
the following article may inshaAllah answer your questions

there is no compulsion in religion

[Najiullah]

:sl:
the following article may inshaAllah answer your questions

there is no compulsion in religion

thanks for the artical sis Amani :) reading it

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[kadafi]

:sl:

I was reading Ibn Kathir's Tafsir about the Verse: Let there be No Compulsion in Acceptance of Religion

According to him, this verse has been abrogated by several verses such as: Strive against the unbelievers and be harsh against them

And he even said we are to wage global Jihad until everyone pays Jizyah or accepts Islam

So why is it that such promient scholars are quoting this verse if this is true?..

If this is true how can we tell everyone that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance?

:sl:

I have yet to come across that statement. Al-Haafidh ibn Katheer says regarding that verse:

أي لا تكرهوا أحداً على الدخول في دين الإسلام
فإنه بيِّن واضح، جلي دلائله وبراهينه، لا يحتاج إلى أن يكره أحد على الدخول فيه

meaning

Do not force anyone to embrace the religion of al-Islaam (i.e. become Muslim), for the Truth (i.e. Islaam) is clear, [......]. So there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islaam.

:w:

[Hijrah]

"Assalamu Alaikum,

The view that the ayat is abrogated is an incorrect view according to the scholars of Islam, even though there are scholars who hold this view.

I will later Insha'Allah post the scholars view on that Ayat, and if it is abrogated or not, until then if anyone has the book "Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'an" by Abu Ammar Yasir Qadhi, (I forgot the page number to the quote), then please post the response.

Jazakallah Khair"

...

[Umm Yoosuf]

Greetings,


Where does it say "fighting for justice"? It says "strive against the disbelievers". What do you suppose that means?

Peace

Please see these two threads for more info...

http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...ead-sword.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...-apostasy.html

[Hijrah]

Please see these two threads for more info...

http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...ead-sword.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...-apostasy.html

Sorry, I don't think those threads have anything to do with what heis referring to

[azim]

Asalaamu alaykum.

Could you refer to the exact copy of Ibn Kathir's tafsir that you have. I checked the copies at the mosque and none have reference to the abbrogation.

Jazakallahmul khair.

[Hijrah]

I'll check the net time I go which is probably this Friday but again, this is real fishy

[Hijrah]

:sl:

I have yet to come across that statement. Al-Haafidh ibn Katheer says regarding that verse:

أي لا تكرهوا أحداً على الدخول في دين الإسلام
فإنه بيِّن واضح، جلي دلائله وبراهينه، لا يحتاج إلى أن يكره أحد على الدخول فيه

meaning

Do not force anyone to embrace the religion of al-Islaam (i.e. become Muslim), for the Truth (i.e. Islaam) is clear, [......]. So there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islaam.

:w:

In the original Arabic, Ibn Katheer states what the verse means then mentions the proofs from the Sunnah to support it, which include narrations mentioning the reason why the verse was revealed. He then states that a group of many of the scholars took the opinion that this verse is pertaining to the people of the Book and whoever entered their religion before it was changed and abrogated if they offered the jizyah. He then mentions that other scholars said that this verse was abrogated by the verse of fighting, that it is obligatory that all of the nations be called to enter into Islam, and that if one of them refused to enter into it and did not submit to it or offer the jizyah, they are fought until they are killed. He then states that this is the meaning of compulsion and mentions a few verses and a hadeeth to support it.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

:sl:
This has already been answered in great detail in this article. I will paste the response right here:

Abrogated?

The next issue with this verse concerns abrogation. It has been claimed by some that this verse 9:5 has abrogated all the peaceful verses in the Qur'an. However, this claim results from a misunderstanding of some Qur'anic concepts. In the Qur'an there is naskh and there is also takhsees. Naskh is the abrogation of a ruling by a ruling that was revealed after it. Naskh occurs in matters of Islamic law. Takhsees on the other hand refers to specification, where one verse restricts the application of another verse, or specifies the limits not mentioned in the other verse. As Shaykh Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi writes:

Specification involves one verse limiting or restricting a general ruling found in another verse, whereas naskh involves abrogating the first verse in toto (i.e., it is not applied in any circumstances or conditions). (Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan;UK Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution, 1999, p. 233)

Shaykh Qadhi also explains that one of the conditions for naskh is that the two conflicting rulings apply to the same situation under the same circumstances, and hence there is no alternative understanding of the application of the verses. As he states:

Therefore, if one of the rulings can apply to a specific case, and the other ruling to a different case, this cannot be considered an example of naskh. (Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan;UK Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution, 1999, p. 237)

Therefore, verse 9:5 can in no way be considered an example of naskh since it is only a ruling applied to a very specific situation and circumstances. There is a lot of confusion surrounding some verses labeled as cases of naskh because the early Muslims used to use the word naskh to refer to takhsees as well. Therefore, some Muslims failed to realize that some of these cases labeled by early Muslims as 'naskh' were cases of takhsees. This is why some early Muslim scholars are quoted who have classified this verse as a case of 'naskh'. One should realize that they used the term naskh to refer to a broader range of meanings, including takhsees. As Dr. Jamal Badawi writes:

Any claim of naskh must be definitive, not based on mere opinion or speculation. It should be noted that earlier Muslims used the term naskh to refer also to takhsees or specifying and limiting the ruling than abrogating it. (SOURCE, emphasis added)

Shaykh Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi specifically addresses the confusion about verse 9:5, and after citing the different claims he concludes:

It can be seen from the examples and categories quoted that, in reality, most of these verses cannot be considered to have been abrogated in the least. Some of them merely apply to situations other than those that they were revealed for. Almost all of these 'mansookh' (abrogated) verses can still be said to apply when the Muslims are in a situation similar to the situation in which the verses were revealed. Thus, the 'Verse of the Sword' in reality does not abrogate a large number of verses; in fact, az-Zarqaanee concludes that it does not abrogate any! (fn. Az-Zarqaanee, v.2, pps.275-282) (Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan;UK Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution, 1999, p. 254)

Shaykh Sami Al-Majid also states the same thing in his article:

Some people – especially some contemporary non-Muslim critics of Islam – have tried to claim that this verse abrogates the verse “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” They argue that the generality of this statement implies that every unbeliever who refuses to accept Islam must be fought. They support their allegation by pointing out that this verse is one of the last verses to be revealed about fighting. However, this verse in no way abrogates the principle in Islamic Law that there is no compulsion in religion. It may be general in wording, but its meaning is quite specific on account of other verses of the Qur’ân that are connected with it as well as on account of a number of pertinent hadîth. (SOURCE)

Shaykh Jamal Al-Din Zarabozo also deals with this issue in his writings on the verse "There is no compulsion in religion". He mentions the view that this verse has been abrogated as then states:

Al-Dausiri rejects this statement because of the following: A verse cannot abrogate another verse unless it completely removes the ruling of the earlier verse and there is no way to reconcile the contradictory meanings of the verses. (Zarabozo, There is No Compulsion in Religion, Al-Basheer)

This was the view of the great scholars and mufasireen (Qur'anic commentators) both classical and recent, like Ash-Shanqeeti or Ibn Jarir At-Tabari. Shaykh Muhammad S. Al-Awa also comments on this issue in his discussion on the puunishment for apostasy:

At the same time, one can say that the death penalty for apostasy – especially when it is considered as a hadd (prescribed) punishment – contradicts the Qur'anic principle [law] in Surah II, verse 256, which proclaims "No compulsion in religion." Ibn Hazm, to avoid this criticism, claimed that this verse had been abrogated and that compulsion is allowed in religion; consequently, according to him, the punishment for apostasy does not contradict the Qur'an (fn. Muhalla, vol. XI, p. 195). However, this claim is invalid, since Qur'anic scholars have established the abrogated verses and this verse is not among them (fn. Suyuti, Itqan, vol. II, p. 22-24). Accordingly, one can say with the Encyclopaedia of Islam that "In the Qur'an the apostate is threatened with punishment in the next world only." (fn. Heffening, Encyclopaedia of Islam, vol. III, p. 736 under "Murtadd"). (El-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law; US American Trust Publications, 1993, p. 51, emphasis added)

Therefore, when we discuss the merciful and loving verses of the Qur'an and we receive a claim that they have been abrogated by the specific verses concerning battle, we can dismiss such a claim as mere speculation and invalid. Peace and justice are fundamentals of the religion of Islam and can never be removed from it.

[Hijrah]

:sl:
This has already been answered in great detail in this article. I will paste the response right here:

yes but read post #31, what do you have to say concerning Ibn Kathir's opinion

[kadafi]

In the original Arabic, Ibn Katheer states what the verse means then mentions the proofs from the Sunnah to support it, which include narrations mentioning the reason why the verse was revealed. He then states that a group of many of the scholars took the opinion that this verse is pertaining to the people of the Book and whoever entered their religion before it was changed and abrogated if they offered the jizyah. He then mentions that other scholars said that this verse was abrogated by the verse of fighting, that it is obligatory that all of the nations be called to enter into Islam, and that if one of them refused to enter into it and did not submit to it or offer the jizyah, they are fought until they are killed. He then states that this is the meaning of compulsion and mentions a few verses and a hadeeth to support it.

:sl: brother

I can assure you that what you have mentioned is nowhere to be found. I have it in Arabic and there is an online version as well with the english translation (which does not seem to work for me) that provides the commentary of the ayaah. I think you may have confused the tafseer of Al-Haafidh Ibn Katheer with the tafseer of Imaam al-Qurtubi because it is al-Qurtubi who mentions the several views including the view of abrogation. However, that opinion has been rejected due unsound narrations [athaars], further, the tafseer of Tabaree also does not mention any abrogation of the rule. Perhaps if you could scan the page, we can look at the matter.


[

This has already been answered in great detail in this article. I will paste the response right here:

Masha'Allaah. Excellent response as always.

:w:

[Hijrah]

:sl: sister

I can assure you that what you have mentioned is nowhere to be found. I have it in Arabic and there is an online version as well with the english translation (which does not seem to work for me) that provides the commentary of the ayaah. I think you may have confused the tafseer of Al-Haafidh Ibn Katheer with the tafseer of Imaam al-Qurtubi because it is al-Qurtubi who mentions the several views including the view of abrogation. However, that opinion has been rejected due unsound narrations [athaars], further, the tafseer of Tabaree also does not mention any abrogation of the rule. Perhaps if you could scan the page, we can look at the matter.


[

Masha'Allaah. Excellent response as always.

:w:

Ok but I'm a BROTHER

[kadafi]

Ok but I'm a BROTHER

JazakaAllaahu khairan for complying with the request :)

Sorry! for addressing you as a sister

:w:

[azim]

JazakaAllaahu khairan for complying with the request :)

Sorry! for addressing you as a sister

:w:

Weird... I thought you were a sister as well. No offense. I think it may be something about your avatar... allahu alim.

[Battle_4_Peace]

Al Haafidh Ibn Kathir says about Surah Taubah Ayah 5,

"Later, Surat Bara'ah (chapter 9 in the Qur'an) was revealed.'' `Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam said similarly, then he said that this was later abrogated by the Ayah: (then kill them wherever you find them) (9:5). However, this statement is not plausible, because Allah's statement: (...those who fight you) applies only to fighting the enemies who are engaged in fighting Islam and its people. So the Ayah means, `Fight those who fight you'. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir 2/190).

So this Aya did not abrogate anything according to him! Which means there is freedom of religion, but we will spread the Shariah on earth, whether there is compulsion in religion or not, insha'Allah.

[boriqee]

I dont think an adequate reply was given to the orignal post and its emphasis on the 4

which was

I was reading Ibn Kathir's Tafsir about the Verse: Let there be No Compulsion in Acceptance of Religion

According to him, this verse has been abrogated by several verses such as: Strive against the unbelievers and be harsh against them

And he even said we are to wage global Jihad until everyone pays Jizyah or accepts Islam

So why is it that such promient scholars are quoting this verse if this is true?..

If this is true how can we tell everyone that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance?

This is a Serious Question. Come on now!

EDIT: I ask this on Jalal Abualrub's site and:

"I have the abridged translation of Tafsir Ibn Kathir and it does not state that the verse in question, about there being no compulsion in religion, is abrogated. Instead, Ibn Kathir states that a non-Muslim cannot be forced, or compelled, to become a Muslim."

Why is the abridged one so different then?

let me help you brother if possible bi ithnillah

You see the manhaj of Ibn kathir, whcih is rarely explained is that in his tafseer, he would narrate the ayaah and then first explain the ayaah by another ayaah first and foremost, then he will resort to the sunnah through the narrations and then the statements of hte companions then te tabi'een following model that Ibn taymiyyah employed in the usool of tafseer and then would narrate the weird shaky mudtarib shudhudh ghareeb narrations after all of that. His position was to narrate everything that was said about an ayaah.

So just because Ibn kathir said it doesnt mean he beleived in it or that what he said was correct, rather what is understood to be his position on it is that whcih is employed in his methodology of giving tafseer BY BRINGING THE AUTHENTIC SAYINGS FIRST thus showing his alleigience to those statements.

Hence in the english version of those who translated Ibn kathir they left out the weak, fabricated, or strange reports in the english translation because the english pseaking pospulation is merely concerned awith the authenticness of his work rather than getting all the detailed side tracking statements in his tafseer. that is because the point of making the translation for the englihs audience was to gain benefit from his work, not to get sidetrack in ilmul-mustalah issues in some of the other narrations he brings thus getting technical.

So When Ibn kathir reported that the ayaah inquestion was "abrogated" he merely hinted to an opinion that was said and not that he himelf actually gave that as his own tafseer or explanation of the ayaah.

and that is the fundamental problem with atheists or disbeleivers in islam who try to delve into our texts into the arabic with the complete lack of understaning and competence on even the very basic methodologies employed by our scholars thus trying to insinuate someting that they themselves have no understanding about.

anyways it was said

This:

Originally Posted by Musalmaan
there is no way in islam to make people muslim by force,

seems to be contradicted by this:

BUT at the sametime it is duty of muslims to strive against the disbelievers , enemies of islam and muslims, enemies of peace,

It's really no wonder outsiders get confused.

"striving" against the disbeleivers does not equal "forcing them to be muslim"

explain why you view this to be the same.

Where does it say "fighting for justice"? It says "strive against the disbelievers". What do you suppose that means?

faith leads to justice and disbeleif equals injustice. That does not mean that disbeliver cannot be just nor that beleiver cannot be unjust, it mans that beleif in and of itself inherent upon the one who has it is by default upon the side of justice and the faith of disbeleif upon the one who adherese to such disbeleif is by default on he opposing side of justice. that reality is quite evident in the world around us today and throughout history.

Your (disbeleiving) history is repleat with the wishing and the intent of the annialation of islam. whether a hanful of individuals sincerily are opposed to this does not cancel out the overwhelming majority of your people from all parts of the world to have this enacted out. Why/ because of their faith.

[Kahil_Aws]

Praise be to Allaah.

The scholars explained that these two verses, and other similar verses, have to do with those from whom the jizyah may be taken, such as Jews, Christians and Magians (Zoroastrians). They are not to be forced, rather they are to be given the choice between becoming Muslim or paying the jizyah.

Other scholars said that this applied in the beginning, but was subsequently abrogated by Allaah’s command to fight and wage jihad. So whoever refuses to enter Islaam should be fought when the Muslims are able to fight, until they either enter Islaam or pay the jizyah if they are among the people who may pay jizyah. The kuffaar should be compelled to enter Islaam if they are not people from whom the jizyah may be taken, because that will lead to their happiness and salvation in this world and in the Hereafter. Obliging a person to adhere to the truth in which is guidance and happiness is better for him than falsehood. Just as a person may be forced to do the duty that he owes to other people even if that is by means of imprisonment or beating, so forcing the kaafirs to believe in Allaah alone and enter into the religion of Islaam is more important and more essential, because this will lead to their happiness in this world and in the Hereafter. This applies unless they are People of the Book, i.e., Jews and Christians, or Magians, because Islaam says that these three groups may be given the choice: they may enter Islaam or they may pay the jizyah and feel themselves subdued.

Some of the scholars are of the view that others may also be given the choice between Islaam and jizyah, but the most correct view is that no others should be given this choice, rather these three groups are the only ones who may be given the choice, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) fought the kuffaar in the Arabian Peninsula and he only accepted their becoming Muslim. And Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”

[al-Tawbah 9:5]

He did not say, “if they pay the jizyah”. The Jews, Christians and Magians are to be asked to enter Islaam; if they refuse then they should be asked to pay the jizyah. If they refuse to pay the jizyah then the Muslims must fight them if they are able to do so. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allaah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allaah and His Messenger (Muhammad), (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islaam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”

[al-Tawbah 9:29]

And it was proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) accepted the jizyah from the Magians, but it was not proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or his companions (may Allaah be pleased with them) accepted the jizyah from anyone except the three groups mentioned above.

The basic principle concerning that is the words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning):

“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone [in the whole of the world]”

[al-Anfaal 8:39]

“Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”

[al-Tawbah 9:5]

This verse is known as Ayat al-Sayf (the verse of the sword).

These and similar verses abrogate the verses which say that there is no compulsion to become Muslim.

And Allaah is the Source of strength.

[Majmoo’ Fataawa wa Maqaalaat li’l-Shaykh Ibn Baaz, 6/219]