No compulsion in religion?

[snakelegs]

"no compulsion in religion" really means that you can't force anyone to become a Muslim. And that's pretty much all. It doesn't mean that a Muslim is free to disobey God as he likes because there's "no compulsion in religion". These are two different things. It's compulsory for a Muslim to pray, fast during Ramadhan, and pay annual Zakat. A Sharia state has the right to make sure a Muslim does obey the command of God which is deemed compulsory. When you fine someone for speeding, does that mean that you are forcing them to slow down. It's merely a reminder as I see it. I'm not good in giving examples but I hope you get my point.

i understand that a muslim is not free to disobey God - after all, he has submitted. i know it's compulsory for a muslim to pray etc etc. and i don't see this as "compulsion in religion". it's when the state is involved that the "compulsion in religion" happens. why shoud the muslim need the state to compel him to obey God? in this hypothetical shariah state, are you praying because you wish to please God or because the state is making you?
i understand what you're saying and i guess i just see it differently as a non-muslim. i just know that i wouldn't want the state to force me to worship God.
at least we agree on: "no compulsion in religion" doesn't apply to muslims.

 

[snakelegs]

Hmmm5 “ "no compulsion in religion" really means that you can't force anyone to become a Muslim”.
That isn’t correct at all. The ONLY way there is NO compulsion in religion, by the state, is to eliminate any and all religious distinctions by the state.

Snake Legs, you are loosing sight of the forest for the trees.

You have agreed that Islam compels a Muslim behave a certain way and perform certain duties and is under the threats of punishment if the Muslim doesn't perform. You have not seen that same mindset, as it applies to non-believers (non-believer= non-Muslim ) for what it is, compulsion in religion.

There is compulsion in religion in Islam, for both the Muslim and the non-Muslim alike.

Debating which is worse is really a non-argument as far as this thread is concerned.

not sure i understand your point. the thread is called "no compulsion in religion" and my point was that it is rarely discussed that it does not apply to muslims. it applies to non-muslims in that they are not forced to worship, to become musilm or practice islam.
i'm not sure how distinction by the state is compulsion in and of itself. it is discrimination based on religion, but non-muslims are not forced to pray and muslims are.
btw, i am a devotee of the secular state and could never live in any kind of theocracy for 5 minutes!

 

[Roasted Cashew]

why shoud the muslim need the state to compel him to obey God? in this hypothetical shariah state, are you praying because you wish to please God or because the state is making you?
i just know that i wouldn't want the state to force me to worship God.

Obviously the state can't REALLY FORCE anyone to pray or fast during Ramadhan just like you can't FORCE anyone to wear a helmet or seatbelt. FORCING would be using a gun or something like that. What the state does do is perhaps intervene and give counseling and maybe fine as a reminder. You are completely right in one sense. GOD will not accept an incincere prayer or a fast. And if the state were to force a Muslim to pray or fast at gunpoint that would be completely wrong.

 

[snakelegs]

well, i'm used to secular society. i don't want the state reminding me of my duties to God and i fail to see why it should be necessary in the first place, but that's ok.

 

[Roasted Cashew]

well, i'm used to secular society. i don't want the state reminding me of my duties to God and i fail to see why it should be necessary in the first place, but that's ok.

As you said earlier, you are a non-Muslim and therefore see it from a different angle. But to most Muslims this is nothing different than the Ministry of Transportation airing road security ads on TV and giving tickets to people for breaking traffic rules. One is for your safety here on earth and the one which the Sharia state would do is for the Muslims security(heaven/hell issue) in the hereafter.

 

[snakelegs]

i just found this which contradicts everything i've read before
now it seems that "no compulsion in religion" not only doesn't apply to muslims, but it also doesn't apply to people who are not "people of the book"

There is no compulsion to accept Islam

Question:
Some friends say that whoever does not enter Islam, that is his choice and he should not be forced to become Muslim, quoting as evidence the verses in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed, all of them together. So, will you (O Muhammad) then compel mankind, until they become believers”
[Yoonus 10:99]
“There is no compulsion in religion”
[al-Baqarah 2:256]
What is your opinion concerning that?.

Answer:
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 Islam should be fought when the Muslims are able to fight, until they either enter Islam or pay the jizyah if they are among the people who may pay jizyah. The kuffaar should be compelled to enter Islam 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 Islam 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 Islam says that these three groups may be given the choice: they may enter Islam 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 Islam 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 Islam; 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. Islam) 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.

http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=34770&ln=eng

 

[Roasted Cashew]

“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.

I have clearly seen different analysis of this verse. I don't think the answerer can simply make bold conclusions on his own. That would be taking the whole verse only literally but totally out of context. I think it was revealed to me a few weeks before that the Sheikh who answers at islamq&a is a "SALAFI".

Here is a proper analysis of the verse with proper context and explanation.
Let’s read the verse in context 9:1-9:5:
Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty. Travel freely in the land four months, and know that ye cannot escape Allah and that Allah will confound the disbelievers (in His Guidance). And a proclamation from Allah and His messenger to all men on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage that Allah is free from obligation to the idolaters, and (so is) His messenger. So, if ye repent, it will be better for you; but if ye are averse, then know that ye cannot escape Allah. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve, Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him). Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (PICKTHAL Translation, Quran 9:1-5)

This verses is always quoted out of context, they never post 9:6 or from 9:1 to 9:6. If we read from start it states that there was a treaty, which the Pagans of Arab broke. Thus Allah gave them 4 months as 9:2 states in order to amend the treaty. Verse 9:4 states that the punishment prescribed in 9:5 is ONLY to those who broke the treaty and NOT to those who abided by the treaty. Therefore the context of 9:5 is of war with the pagan Arabs who broke the treaty yet refused to amend it in 4 months.

Naturally, in war violence is expected. If a war is declared between Country A and Country B, because country B broke the treaty and refused to amend, then if president of country A states “wherever you find soldiers of Country B, you kill them and besiege them”, no one would truly find much wrong in that statement.

Killing in war is nothing peculiar, and there is yet to be a war where soldiers hugged and kissed each other. In additions, Dr. Zakir Naik writes in his book “Replies to the most common questions asked by non-muslims“:

“4. Verse 9:5 quoted to boost morale of Muslims during battle
Similarly in Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 5 the Qur’an says, “Kill the Mushriqs [pagans] where ever you find them”, during a battle to boost the morale of the Muslim soldiers. What the Qur’an is telling Muslim soldiers is, don’t be afraid during battle; wherever you find the enemies kill them.”

Islam-critics remain shy of posting the next verse, 9:6, as it contains the answer to their deception:

“And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not. (PICKTHAL Translation, Quran 9:6)

Quran does not only say that you release those who seek protection but it goes even further and states to protect them! In the present international scenario, even a kind, peace-loving army General, during a battle, may let the enemy soldiers go free, if they want peace. But which army General will ever tell his soldiers, that if the enemy soldiers want peace during a battle, don’t just let them go free, but also escort them to a place of security?

Hence even in war Quran promotes peace.

http://www.islamic-shield.com/2008/01/violent-verses.html

 

[snakelegs]

that has been my understanding of the verse also, when read in context.
but now i've got to wondering - what are the differences legally (besides marriage) in treatment between "people of the book" and non-people-of-the-book?
i think you are right about islamqa - it seems to be quite popular around here, but i've never cared for it and find their rulings very harsh.

 

[Roasted Cashew]

that has been my understanding of the verse also, when read in context.
but now i've got to wondering - what are the differences legally (besides marriage) in treatment between "people of the book" and non-people-of-the-book?
i think you are right about islamqa - it seems to be quite popular around here, but i've never cared for it and find their rulings very harsh.

Well, it would be nice to learn more about it from our more knowledgebale brothers and sisters I am not really good at that.

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

A question if one may: Is there currently a state which practices this Dimmi Tax thingamajig?? Not heard of it if it exists. Please shed light on this matter please!

As for converting or losing your life, the Sikh history is full of times the Sikhs were martyed for being Sikh as they refused to convert to Islam by FORCE

NOTE (a few cruel ''muslim'' rulers do not make all muslims bad) the Sikh Prophets (5th Sikh Master - Dhan Guru Arjan Dev Mahaaraj Sahb Ji & 9th Master Dhan Guru Tegh Bahadur Maharaaj Sahib Ji) who were martyed by Moguls during the reign of Aurrengzeb and Shah Jahan (bear in mind they had their own parents locked up and tortured so had NO respect for any living person regardless of religion or ties) So, my point is you don't convert by force on the basis you're left with two choices. If you're heart refuses to believe in anything that is apposed by your own religion, then death is what is acceptable, and embrace it gladly!


(Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ke Fateh - Pure Ones Belong To God, Victory To God)

 

[Woodrow]

A question if one may: Is there currently a state which practices this Dimmi Tax thingamajig?? Not heard of it if it exists. Please shed light on this matter please!

As for converting or losing your life, the Sikh history is full of times the Sikhs were martyed for being Sikh as they refused to convert to Islam by FORCE

NOTE (a few cruel ''muslim'' rulers do not make all muslims bad) the Sikh Prophets (5th Sikh Master - Dhan Guru Arjan Dev Mahaaraj Sahb Ji & 9th Master Dhan Guru Tegh Bahadur Maharaaj Sahib Ji) who were martyed by Moguls during the reign of Aurrengzeb and Shah Jahan (bear in mind they had their own parents locked up and tortured so had NO respect for any living person regardless of religion or ties) So, my point is you don't convert by force on the basis you're left with two choices. If you're heart refuses to believe in anything that is apposed by your own religion, then death is what is acceptable, and embrace it gladly!


(Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ke Fateh - Pure Ones Belong To God, Victory To God)

Now this is scary. I agree with you. I would also like to add that any attempts at forced conversion would result in more reluctance to convert and would probably back fire and result in the would be converters being the ones to convert.

You are right strong adherents of any religion would gladly accept death over converting.

 

[InToTheRain]

I don't see how belief can be forced on someone, certainly the laws can but not the beliefs. This is why the Shahadah is taken to clarify their was no compulsion in belief and the person has done of it of his free will.

Only Allah(SWT) knows that which is in the hearts, minds, and soul. Therefore saying you are a Muslim will not benefit you if you hate Islam (which most propabably is the case if you are being forced to do it). Althought the verse:

[2:256] There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient.

Is a command, it can also be seen as a fact. You can't force some one to believe...

 

[snakelegs]

I don't see how belief can be forced on someone, certainly the laws can but not the beliefs. This is why the Shahadah is taken to clarify their was no compulsion in belief and the person has done of it of his free will.

Only Allah(SWT) knows that which is in the hearts, minds, and soul. Therefore saying you are a Muslim will not benefit you if you hate Islam (which most propabably is the case if you are being forced to do it). Althought the verse:

[2:256] There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient.

Is a command, it can also be seen as a fact. You can't force some one to believe...

this is common sense. however there are hadith that call for killing apostates.

 

[InToTheRain]

this is common sense. however there are hadith that call for killing apostates.

Simply put, they better know what they are getting into before they get into (No one is foricing you to accept Islam as your belief!). Let's say internally one has gone to desbelief from belief, there is nothing forcing them to Apostate openly.

Ultimately, We cannot comprehend the implications of ones actions and Allah(SWT) knows best.

 

[jd7]

Z. Al-Rashid “I don't see how belief can be forced on someone, certainly the laws can but not the beliefs”.

You have restated my point.

Your point is what I have never understood about Islam. Islam seems to be about returning society to Old Testament Law.

If God’s plan was to return folks to the “Law”, then what was the point of the New Covenant?

There was compulsion under the “Law” just as there is compulsion under Islam.

 

[jd7]

Z. Al-Rashid “I don't see how belief can be forced on someone, certainly the laws can but not the beliefs”.

You have restated my point.

Your point is what I have never understood about Islam. Islam seems to be about returning society to Old Testament Law.

If God’s plan was to return folks to the “Law”, then what was the point of the New Covenant?

There was compulsion under the “Law” just as there is compulsion under Islam.

 

[jd7]

Sorry about the double post, connection troubles.

 

[- Qatada -]

jd7 Jesus son of Mary did not abolish the law, Paul did. Jesus established and practised the law throughout his life.


The final Messenger of God, Muhammad (peace be upon him) also continued the the covenant, however - many burdens put upon the Children of Israel were removed. God made the punishments strict to deter evildoers away from transgression, however - He also was and is willing to forgive people who are sincere and who fall into mistakes - since none of the children of Adam are prone from error.




Peace.