No ‘compulsion’ in ‘religion’?
September 29, 2010 39 Comments
Verse 2:256 is generally translated as:
There is no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows all things.
The first part of the verse is one of the most quoted phrase from the Quran to show Islam’s tolerance:
There is no compulsion in religion – لا اكراه في الدين
And as many times as it has been quoted, it has also been pointed out that even several Muslim scholars of Islam believed that the verse was abrogated with the order to “fight.” Other scholars have tried to explain that while no one is compelled to accept Islam, it does not mean that Islam will tolerate fisad(uprising) and whenever there will be an uprising, jihad and qital (killing) will take place. Suyuti interprets 2:256 as a case of postponing the fight until Muslims become strong. He argues that when Muslims were weak, God commanded them to be patient and later in 9:73 asked Muslims to “strive hard against the unbelievers.”
Somewhat skeptical about the notion of abrogation, and certainly shocked by Suyuti’s explanation (which makes the early Muslims and the Prophet seem so opportunistic!) I thought I should do some research and find out what the verse may mean other than the meaning offered and refuted many times.
The word اكراه (ikraha) is translated as compulsion by Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, Shakir, Mohammad Asad (coercion), Arberry, Mohammad Sarwar, Hilali and Khan, Malik, Maulana Ali, Qarribullah, and Rashad Khalifa amongst many others.
One can suspect that one person simply copied the idea from the previous translation because اكراه does not only mean compulsion and it certainly did not mean compulsion in old Arabic. اكراه is from the root Ka/Ra/Ha which in old Arabic meant:
Finding difficult, dislike, disapprove, feel aversion for, loathe, abhor, hate, detest, be unwilling.
Some form of Ka/Ra/Ha is used 41 times in the Quran and other than in 2:256, it is never translated as compulsion.
In old Arabic lexicon one will not find the word compulsion/force/coercion for Ka/Ra/Ha. There also exists a word in Urdu ‘karahiyat’ which is from the same root and it is specifically used to show aversion, for example, it is often used in collocation with pigs or pork – “I feel ‘karahiyat’ (aversion resulting in nausea) when I look at pork.” I have never heard anyone say “I feel compulsion when I look at pork”!
The word اكراه occurs in many ahadith as well, always meaning ‘dislike’ or ‘difficult.’ This shows that the initial meaning of the word was perhaps not compulsion.
Interestingly, George Sale’s earliest (19th Century) translation of the Quran translates the word اكراه as ‘violence’ – there is no violence in religion.
Ibn Kathir too has some interesting stories to share about this verse[i] which in the given context were not really clear to me. What did catch my attention was this little incident that Ibn Kathir narrates:
Abu Dawud and An-Nasa’i also recorded this Hadith. As for the Hadith that Imam Ahmad recorded, in which Anas said that the Messenger of Allah said to a man,
«أَسْلِم»
قَالَ: إِنِّي أَجِدُنِي كَارِهًا قَالَ:
«وَإِنْ كُنْتَ كَارِهًا»
“Embrace Islam.” The man said, “I dislike it.” The Prophet said, “Even if you dislike it.”
First, this is an authentic Hadith, with only three narrators between Imam Ahmad and the Prophet . However, it is not relevant to the subject under discussion, for the Prophet did not force that man to become Muslim. The Prophet merely invited this man to become Muslim, and he replied that he does not find himself eager to become Muslim. The Prophet said to the man that even though he dislikes embracing Islam, he should still embrace it, `for Allah will grant you sincerity and true intent.’
Even in the above narration, the word كَارِهًا is translated as dislike.
Furthermore, the word الدين (ad-deen) occurs some 47 times in the Quran and at least in verses 9:36; 51:6; 52:12; 56:56; 70:26; 82;15; 82:17; 16:52; 26:82; 37:20; 38:78; and 1:4 the meaning implied is not religion but judgment (as in reasoning and differentiation of good from bad).
From these evidences, it would be fairly correct to say that the word اكراه means something other than compulsion which matches the rest of the verse and makes sense when the verse is read completely. Could it be that the verse should read as:
There is no difficulty in judgment: Truth stands out clear from Error – hence whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah has grasped the strongest support that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows all things.
meaning truth is so simple to detect from error that it is not difficult at all for anyone to realise it.
And of course Allah knows best.
[i] Allah said,
﴿لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِى الدِّينِ﴾
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,
﴿لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِى الدِّينِ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ﴾
(There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the right path has become distinct from the wrong path)
“There is no difficulty in judgment: Truth stands out clear from Error ”
Wow, that makes a lot of sense and goes along better with the rest of the verse. But when Arabs read this verse in Arabic and not the English translations (such as I must), how do THEY interpret it? I guess this would be key since it’s how they interpret and then live out this interpretation that affects all who cross paths with Muslims.
And I totally agree with that man who asked “how Islam can be a free religion when there is freedom to enter it but not to leave it.” It’s like you can make up your mind to be a Muslim, but you better choose wisely because you can NOT get out of it without a struggle. And for “born Muslims” there is not much of an option at all. Maybe for some, but I think for most it is assumed they will be Muslim and nothing else. No choice given.
Susanne, language is a living thing and changes with time. That is why most Arabs today actually need the tafsir or old Arabic lexicon to understand the Quran. I have had so many Arabs tell me they don’t understand this or that. Like for example the word used in the Quran for menstruation, is not understood by most Arab speakers. It is an archaic word for ‘discomfort’ yet most translators translate it as pollution because it collocates with the rest of the verse with purify.
There is also the problem that many have not and do not read the Quran at all. Those who read, read it without concentrated comprehension and such verses, as long as they are serving the purpose, are not scrutinised. There are obviously many ‘scholars’ who read the Quran to understand and use, but there focus is often on verses that lay down laws. I will admit that I never once worried about this verse until now when every second Muslim uses it to prove that Islam is tolerant.
There is this belief in every religion that if you leave it, you are a jerk. Some religions just shake their heads and move on like Buddhism and Hinduism, there are those that will condemn you but not violently like Judaism and Christianity, and then there is Islam where you can be killed for turning your back. But I don’t think this will last long. I really do think that in a century or so, apostasy laws will be revised in Islam.
I agree, though I wish the “no compulsion” meaning would hold. Personally, I don’t believe in any compulsion to adhere to any religion, and I detest the idea that one cannot enter or leave religions at will.
Christianity, too, does not “allow” apostasy; Evidently you will burn in hell forever if you believed in Christianity and then rejected it.
I’ve always learned that one must read religious verses in context, and must learn the history that gave rise to them. This requirement weakens the whole idea of the truth of any religion, at least for me.
Why must we continually study the various meanings of the original Arabic words in order to get the right idea behind an ayah? Shouldn’t a book of ultimate truth be available to all people at all times, free of nuance, clear of meaning, and without contradictions?
The idea of abrogation really bothers me. If certain verses were abrogated even during revelation, ostensibly to meet newly evolved needs of the population, why can’t other verses be abrogated later for the same reason?
I don’t expect answers to these questions. In my mind, I hear my mother saying, “Because I said so,” and I suppose that’s the answer to religious questioning, as well. Allah said so… so shut up, no?
I wish that too, Marahm, although I have been confused in the past because the truth is apostasy is not treated lightly (although there is historical evidence that many new Muslims became Hanifs or Christian and migrated to other cities, which shows that their new status wouldn’t have been liked by Muslims so they migrated – they would have had to pay jizya too – but that they weren’t quickly killed for reverting to their old religion).
I know what you mean – I have asked the same questions so many times and finally came to some conclusions.
Suyuti thinks that the total number of abrogated instances in the Quran is 250!
Well, Marahm, I will never say to you, “Because God said so…”
And I get the flak for not saying that but…
From what I’ve read of Muhammad Asad’s translation, he doesn’t believe in the idea that any verses have been abrogated. That’s the stance I take too, it makes more sense.
Yes, Asad didn’t believe in abrogation. He was an interesting man.
Is that a “good” interesting??
Yes, definitely a good interesting
He was a rationalist so many traditional Muslims don’t like him but I find him to be the best of the lot.
And by contrast there is Reza Aslan….not a translator, but someone who makes a lot of sense to me. As I wrote about him on my blog:
Aslan makes the case for the Quran being living and breathing and changing as times changed. He points to verses that contradict others – abrogated by God or Muhammad – as times changed. He suggests this may be why Muhammad never had the Quran written down because it was subject to change based on how the community grew. He argues that “while God may not change, the Revelation most certainly did, and without apology.” The idea that the Quran cannot be interpreted in ways that make sense to modern times and Muslims must live as the Prophet and other early Muslims did is “simply an untenable position in every sense.”
Susanne, thank you for mentioning Reza Aslan. I’ve never heard of him, but his theory is a breath of fresh air, and makes perfect sense. If the Qur’an was abrogated during revelation, why not after? Maybe those early abrogations were meant to serve as inspiration and permission for us. If Muslims feel they must follow in the footsteps of Mohammad, why not in this matter, too?
Hello. I just started following your blog because someone suggested it in a comment to mine, and I’ve seen you around on friends’ blogs. Hope that’s ok.
I love the way you explained this, it makes much more sense to me and the mini language lesson was very helpful. I want to learn Arabic at some point, but I know almost none of it now. Anyway, I thought this was a very impressive explanation, thank you for sharing it!
Oh hello, Sanil! Thank you so much for reading me and commenting. It is an honour! Why wouldn’t be ok?! It is great!
Thanks! I am happy you liked the explanation. Classical Arabic is so different from the Arabic used today that it is literally like reading Shakespeare and not knowing whether to laugh or cry
But thankfully much work has been done by tafsir writers to help us understand the ocntext as well as words. It is also a diffcult language to learn. Good luck! I’m a linguist so I love languages and people who love languages 
Well, you never know.
I have found some people who only wanted friends they knew following their blog and would be uncomfortable with comments from strangers.
Oh! No, that is not the case with my blog. You are most welcome to read, comment , respond, debate, discuss, even argue
Wow, that definitely makes the “truth stands out clearly from error” part more sensible! I understood it in the sense that since things are clear, there’s no need to force anyone. But now that I think about it, that doesn’t logically hold – compulsion is a completely different issue from clarity.
As always, I love learning from you!
Really? Thanks! It means so much coming from you.
Yes, compulsion is different from clarity. You are right. If something is not clear does it mean we should force a person to do it or not do it? If something is clear but the person doesn’t do it, is it ok? Good point!
Thanks for breaking down the word and explaining it with already existing like meanings.This reminds me of the word,’beat’ or daraba.There’re whole lot of worms out of the can if one were to look into the many meanings a word can say.
What’s important is to interpret the way it should be interpreted.The word compulsion is a stronger word,is it not? Either way,I think it somehow says the same thing to me.
Compulsion a strong word? Yea, it is! Never thought like that. I don’t even know how it began to be understood as compulsion. I should read on that. Any idea?
One tafsir I read explained the verse as “no one among the people of the book and the magians should be coerced to believe in Allah,meaning tawhid,after the Arabs embrace Islam”.I think it was said by a Muadi bin Sami al-tahimi.
And I also remember a hadith like you mentioned above,about the prophet letting a man go or rather leave Medina,who reverts back to his religion.He didn’t put him to death.
Why the word complusion? I think should check who translated the word first.I don’t know who it was.I think I’ve read it somewhere but I forgot the name.Somewhere in the 16th century? Maybe the clue lies where the author came from.
Marahm, Reza Aslan is a wonderful writer. You must read No God but God. He is awesome.
Susanne, yes, I like that about Aslan. But I really wonder why the Prophet never compiled the Quran when there was immense pride attached to the revelation and “Book.”
I ordered the book (Kindle edition) today. I’ll post about it in a few weeks, or sooner.
That was fascinating! I rather like the idea of ‘there is no violence in religion’, even if it remains a seemingly unobtainable ordeal.
Ideal! That should have read ‘ideal’, not ordeal. Talk about a Freudian slip…
Haha! Freudian slip indeed!
I was actually quite relieved that it could mean something else because I am quite tired of Muslims quoting this verse (and that too only a part of it because the other part doesn’t even make sense if one reads it as compulsion) and then non-Muslims attacking it with counter verses. It made me happy that Quran can be read in different ways.
He didn’t have enough time? He trusted his companions to pass his message orally as it should be?
Afterall whatever that was compiled of previous revelations hardly contained the whole truth.Not that he didn’t believe them but that they were also ‘corrupted’ in a sense.By doing the same to his own,what garantee did he have? It’s not about God safeguarding it but about humans recording it?
I thought that a complete Quran was left to Hafsah his wife for safekeeping.No? Whether it was a book or a bunch of leaflets I’ve no idea.
Maybe.
Hafsah had the Quran that was compiled during the caliphate of Abu Bakr. I think.
very interesting post, honestly I dont believe in abrogation , is it possible to write a seprate post about it in “Achelois” ? I am very eager to hear from you
many dont want to believe that ” There is no compulsion in religion “, because believing in that means fundamental changes in life of muslims and they dont like change, they love sticking to their current worldview.
mariam-Iran
You don’t? How is that? Maybe I’ll ask people here about their views on abrogation. What do you think?
Regarding abrogation, in my humble opinion, it’s been going on behind the scenes for as long as sacred texts have been translated. When Arabic words have up to twenty meanings, and various translators choose meanings that give their resultant work different comparative meanings, don’t we have a situation resembling abrogation? No one declares, “My translation supersedes yours,”
and no one dares eliminate verses, or substitute verses, at least not in the current era, but surely such a practice occurred during the early years, when scholars were few and far between, and their opinions became law?
Remember, no typewriters existed, no proof readers, and no peer review. While no one today could get away with abrogating texts or shading meanings, early scholars not only ran free within their realm, but were expected to lay down their opinion without challenge.
Frankly, I think changes have been slipping in and out of sacred texts (all of them) for centuries. I’m starting to think it’s been necessary, and should probably occur with more deliberation and focused attention to bringing the spirit of the ancient texts into modern life, rather than cramming modern life into ancient texts .
“I’m starting to think it’s been necessary, and should probably occur with more deliberation and focused attention to bringing the spirit of the ancient texts into modern life, rather than cramming modern life into ancient texts .”
Perfectly said!
You overlook two important facts here:
1. The fact that apostasy laws are so common in Islamic societies. In most of the Muslim world, religious freedom and choice is not an options. Not only that, any questioning of major Islamic dogma is not permitted. How can Muslims in the West be trusted when they do this?
2. The words of Mohammad in the hadith: “Kill anyone that changes his (Islamic) religion. This is from Bukhari 52, I believe. The implications of this are staggering in moral terms, yet so-called moderate Muslims prefere to pretend these words do not exists and turn a blind eye to the intolerance praticed in Islamic societies, as if either have nothing to do with the ‘real’ Islam, what ever that is.
Kactuz
PS: Abrogation is silly. The “I give you better verses” verse means that a. the Quran has been edited so not eternal, and b. nobody knows which verses were abrogated. Were they deleted or left in?
PSS: Does this mean that Mohammad outranks Allah? Does this make Mohammad morally responsible for the executions of people that have decided to leave Islam?
Hi Kactuz! Thanks for your comment.
I’m not arguing here that there is compulsion in Islam or there isn’t. That is another debate altogether. I am merely saying that the word ikraha has another meaning that fits the context better.
salam Achelois
No I dont believe in Abrogation ( I am not Ahmadi or Zeidi ).I think our scholars ( both sunni,shia) use this method to justify 1-many Ahadith 2-their interepretation of Quran
I dont think believing in Abrogation make my undrestanding from Quran more exact.
mariam-Iran
I understand the problems with abrogation but I get stuck when the Quran itself says it has been abrogated:
“None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or
similar. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?” (2:106)
I see that as the Qur’an saying it abrogates earlier scripture.
Here’s Muhammad Asad’s footnote to that verse:
“The principle laid down in this passage – relating to the supersession of the Biblical dispensation by that of the Qur’an – has given rise to an erroneous interpretation by many Muslim theologians. The word ayah (“message”) occurring in this, context is also used to denote a “verse;” of the Qur’an (because every one of these verses contains a message). Taking this restricted meaning of the term ayah, some scholars conclude from the above passage that certain verses of the Qur’an have been “abrogated” by God’s command before the revelation of the Qur’an was completed. Apart from the fancifulness of this assertion-which calls to mind the image of a human author correcting, on second thought, the proofs of his manuscript. deleting one passage and replacing it with another-there does not exist a single reliable Tradition to the effect that the Prophet ever, declared a verse of the Qur’an to have been “abrogated”. At the root of the so-called “doctrine of abrogation” may lie the inability of some of the early commentators to reconcile one Qur’anic passage with another: a difficulty which was overcome by declaring that one of the verses in question had been “abrogated”. This arbitrary procedure explains also why there is no unanimity whatsoever among the upholders of the “doctrine of abrogation” as to which, and how many, Qur’an-verses have been affected by it; and, furthermore, as to whether this alleged abrogation implies a total elimination of the verse in question from the context of the Qur’an, or only a cancellation of the specific ordinance or statement contained in it. In short, the “doctrine of abrogation” has no basis whatever in historical fact, and must be rejected. On the other hand, the apparent difficulty in interpreting the above Qur’anic passage disappears -immediately if the temp ayah is understood, correctly, as “message”, and if we read this verse in conjunction with the preceding one, which states that the Jews and the Christians refuse to accept any revelation which might supersede that of the Bible: for, if read in this way, the abrogation relates to the earlier divine messages and not to any part of the Qur’an itself. “
I have read that before. Asad was strongly against abrogation. But he forgot to explain why only one verse in the entire Quran would call earlier revelations ‘ayat’ when even Jews and Christians are called People of the Book not People of the Ayat/Message/Revelation. He refers to verse 105 in which even the Jews and Christians are called People of the Book that he translates as “those from among the followers of earlier revelation.” Strangely I waited all along for Asad to explain the “inability” of others “to reconcile one Qur’anic passage with another” but he didn’t. How did he reconcile them? I accept that abrogation was used to explain away contradictions, but how does Asad explain them without abrogation, I never found out. He actually completely ignores them or recreates history. For example, with reference to 33:53, Asad insists that it couldn’t have been revealed before 7 AH (without giving any proof) because the Prophet married his last wife then, whereas all historical records show that 33:53 was revealed in 5 AH and in fact the last marriage of the Prophet is recorded to have taken place in 9 AH so even if 33:53 was revealed in 7 AH there was a wedding in 9 AH. All other commentators believe that the previous verse 33:52 is an abrogation of verse 33:53.
I actually read ‘ayat’ as signs like the Quran calls them many times in the Quran so I prefer Sarwar’s interpretation of 2:106 (which is not supported by anyone else except for perhaps Khalifa):
For whatever sign We change or eliminate or cause to recede into oblivion, We bring forth a better sign, one that is identical. Do you not know that God has power over all things?
What do you think?
The verses that you mention does not make sense, if abrogation is accepted to me,unless another verse is also abrogated.
I read somewhere that the Quran is faradh in QuranicTeachings website.My translation of faradh reads as ordained.
‘Allah says that the Quran is faradh,He does not make any exception of any verse which is not faradh.’
Yes i too prefer the word ‘ayat’ as signs accordingly to Quran.
Maybe the abrogation verse was actually abrogated and now there is no abrogation.
(sorry!)
As Salaam O Alaikum! I am appreciating your blog. Thank you! Salaam!