Saudi Arabia to open Christian Churches

Al Masihi wrote: ...............

The issue is whether or not the following verse has been abrogated:

‘There is no compulsion in religion (lā ikrāha fī’l-dīn).’ (Al-Baqara: 256).

Let me remind you of Muhammad Abdel Haleem’s words:

‘(This verse)…..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……It is inconceivable that the Qur’an would abrogate any of this, including, ‘true guidance has become distinct from error. God is all-hearing and all-knowing’. Neither does it make sense linguistically to abrogate something and leave its reasons operative.’ (‘Exploring the Qur'an: Context and Impact’).

‘No compulsion in religion’ means no compulsion in any religion: in Judaism; in Christianity; in Islam; in Hinduism; in Shito; in Paganism; in Polytheism; and so on, and so on. The choice to enter any given religion is always a free choice. The choice to remain in, or to leave, any given religion is always a free choice. That is what is meant by the words ‘lā ikrāha fī’l-dīn’.

You quote from the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, where he states that Al-Baqara 256 has been: ‘Abrogated by the verse of "fighting”’; and again: ‘Therefore, all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the Jizya they should be fought till they are killed. This is the meaning of compulsion.’

Ibn Kathir is referring to this verse:

‘Fight those of the People of the Book who do not (truly) believe in Allāh and the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allāh and His Messenger have forbidden, who do not obey the rule of justice, until they pay the tax and agree to submit.’ (Al-Tawba 29).

This verse has nothing whatsoever to do with fighting other folk until they change their religion. It is all about the State taking action against those who ‘do not obey the rule of justice’; that rule being the obligation to pay their taxes.

Haleem writes:

‘If there is any domination advised in this verse, it is only that of the state over its citizens to enforce tax regulations. Thus, for example, when some Muslim tribes, following the death of the Prophet, refused to pay zakāh, Abū Bakr sent Muslim armies to fight them and enforce payment.’ (‘Exploring the Qur'an: Context and Impact’).

Jizya means ‘payment in return’. The tax was levied only on able-bodied free men who could afford to pay it. The amount was generally low (around one dinar per year). Paying the tax placed one under the protection of the State. It exempted one from military service, and from the taxes levied on Muslims. If Jizya was intended to encourage conversation to Islam then monks and clergy would not have been exempted; neither would women, males below military age, or the old.

Haleem adds: ‘The offence is failing to pay what is due to the Muslim state in which they live. The earlier part of the verse condemns their behaviour, which leads them to the real offence for which they are to be fought. The whole text is addressed to the Prophet as the head of the Muslim state and the Muslims as citizens of that state.’

He continues: ‘For example, the Prophet’s treaty with the Christians of Najrān stipulated that they should not be obliged to join the Muslim army (lā yuḥsharūn). This was so because military jihād has an Islamic religious connotation and was therefore not imposed on them. As Muḥammad ‘Imāra puts it, “those who did volunteer to fight with the Muslims against the Persians and Byzantines were exempted from the Jizya and shared the battle gains with the Muslims”.

‘Jizya in this sense can be considered, as ‘Imāra states, “badal jundiyya” (“in exchange for military service”, not in exchange for the People of the Book being allowed to keep their own faith. Moreover, Abū ‘Ubayda, one of the Prophet’s companions and commander of the Muslim army, during his campaign in Syria in 15/635, when it became clear to him that he could not defend a community that paid Jizya, returned the Jizya to them saying, “As we cannot defend you, we have no right to charge you the Jizya”. Beyond the sphere of protecting them, paying Jizya is clearly meant to be a contribution to the state. In the Muslim state, Muslims have to pay zakāh. People of the Book, who enjoy the benefits of living in the Muslim state, are exempted from zakāh because there is a religious, Islamic side to it, since it is a pillar of Islam.’

As you can see, a Muslim leader who failed to provide his subjects with adequate security was obliged to refund the tax. Abū ‘Ubayda did so; and so did Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn when he was forced to withdraw his army from Syria.

Take note: Neither of these leaders compelled their non-Muslim subjects to accept Islam; nor did they kill them (either to avoid repaying tax money; or because these same subjects would not convert). No, they simply repaid the money.

Haleem writes:

‘It is reported that the second Caliph ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb passed by the door of people at which there was a beggar who was an old blind man. ‘Umar struck his arm from behind and asked, ‘To which People of the Book do you belong?’ He said, ‘I am a Jew.’ ‘Umar said, ‘What has compelled you to beg?’ The man replied, ‘I am begging in order to get money to pay for jizya and my need, as I am old.’ Then ‘Umar held his hand and took him to his house and gave him gifts and money. He then sent him to the Treasurer (the keeper of the bayt al-māl) who had been instructed to take care of the man and whomsoever was like him. ‘Umar added, ‘We have not done justice to this man as we took jizya from him when he was young, but we forsook him when he was old. Verily, the sadaqa is for the poor and destitute. And this man is a destitute from the People of the Book.’ Thus ‘Umar exempted taking the jizya from him.’

You will note that ‘Umar did not kill this man for being a Jew; did not attempt to convert him to Islam; did not ignore his plight. Instead, he helped him, and treated him justly by exempting him from the Jizya. In short, he did everything expected of an Amir al-Mu'minin, and one-time Companion of the
Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam). May Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) reward the Amir for his exemplary behaviour.

Al Masihi wrote: ...............

Your third post contains the claim that Al-Baqara 256 has been abrogated by Al-Tawba 73; which you render as: ‘O Prophet! Do jihad against the unbelievers and the hypocrites.’

It is essential to set this verse into context:

‘The believers, both men and women, support each other; they order what is right and forbid what is wrong; they keep up the prayer and pay the prescribed alms; they obey Allāh and His Messenger. Allāh will give His mercy to such people: Allāh is almighty and wise. Allāh has promised the believers, both men and women, Gardens graced with flowing streams where they will remain; good, peaceful homes in Gardens of lasting bliss; and - greatest of all - Allāh’s good pleasure. That is the supreme triumph.

‘Prophet, strive (jāhidi) against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be tough with them. Hell is their final home - an evil destination! They swear by Allāh that they did not, but they certainly did speak words of defiance and became defiant after having submitted; they tried to do something, though they did not achieve it, being spiteful was their only response to Allāh and His Messenger enriching them out of His bounty. They would be better off turning back (to Allāh): if they turn away, Allāh will punish them in this world and the Hereafter, and there will be no one on earth to protect or help them.

‘There are some among them who pledged themselves to Allāh, saying: “If Allāh gives us some of His bounty, we shall certainly give alms and be righteous,” yet when He did give them some of His bounty, they became mean and turned obstinately away. Because they broke their promise to Allāh, because of all the lies they told, He made hypocrisy settle in their hearts until the Day they meet Him. Do they not realize that Allāh knows their secrets and their private discussions? That Allāh knows all that is hidden? It is they who criticize the believers who give freely and those who can only give a little with great effort: they scoff at such people, but it is Allāh who scoffs at them – a painful punishment awaits them. It makes no difference (Prophet) whether you ask forgiveness for them or not: Allāh will not forgive them even if you ask seventy times, because they reject Allāh and His Messenger. Allāh does not guide those who rebel against Him.’ (Al-Tawba: 71-80).

These verses contrast the behaviour of believers with that of unbelievers. The former: ‘…support each other; they order what is right and forbid what is wrong; they keep up the prayer and pay the prescribed alms; they obey Allāh and His Messenger’; and for this they are promised: ‘Gardens graced with flowing streams where they will remain; good, peaceful homes in Gardens of lasting bliss; and - greatest of all - Allāh’s good pleasure.’

The latter speak ‘words of defiance against Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla); and (become) defiant after having submitted. They fail because they are ‘spiteful’ in their response - their only response - not only to Allāh but to His Messenger (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam). Because of this the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) is commanded strive against them.

Khaled M. Abou El Fadl reminds us that:

‘The Qur’an does not use the word jihad to refer to warfare or fighting; such acts are referred to as qital. While the Qur’an’s call to jihad is unconditional and unrestricted, such is not the case for qital. Jihad is a good in and of itself, while qital is not. Jihad is good because it is like the Protestant work ethic: hard work toward a good cause. Qital - war - however, is a different matter altogether. Every reference in the Qur’an to qital is restricted and limited by particular conditions; but exhortations to jihad, like the references to justice or truth, are absolute and unconditional. On every single occasion that the Qur’an exhorts Muslims to fight, it hastens to qualify the exhortation by a command to believers to not transgress, to forgive, or to seek peace. Although this fact is recognizable by simply reading the text of the Qur’an, this textual reality has strangely eluded a large number of Muslim and non-Muslim scholars of the Qur’an. Nevertheless, it is beyond dispute that the Qur’an never endorses the military option without conditioning that choice in some significant way.’ (‘The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists’).

One person cannot compel another to accept a religion without using some form of violence (including the threat of violence). Jihad, in the form of persuasion; exhortation; argument; debate - rather than violence - was the only permissible way for the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) to bring others into Islam.

Your sources claim that Al-Baqara 256 has been abrogated by Al-Nisa 65: ‘No, by your Lord, they are not believers until they make you their judge in the disputes that break out between them.’

And you go on to say that this is a command to ‘fight the People of the Book.’

Again, here is Al-Nisa 65 in its context:

‘Do you (Prophet) not see those who claim to believe in what has been sent down to you, and in what was sent down before you, yet still want to turn to false deities for judgement, although they have been ordered to reject them? Satan wants to lead them far astray. When they are told: “Turn to Allāh’s revelations and the Messenger (for judgement)”, you see the hypocrites turn right away from you (Prophet). If disaster strikes them because of what they them-selves have done, then they will come to you, swearing by Allāh: “We only wanted to do good and achieve harmony.” Allāh knows well what is in the hearts of these people, so ignore what they say, instruct them, and speak to them about themselves using penetrating words.

‘All the messengers We sent were meant to be obeyed, by Allāh’s leave. If only (the hypocrites) had come to you (Prophet) when they wronged themselves, and begged Allāh’s forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found that Allāh accepts repentance and is most merciful. By your Lord, they will not be true believers until they let you decide between them in all matters of dispute, and find no resistance in their souls to your decisions, accepting them totally - if We had ordered: “Lay down your lives” or “Leave your homes,” they would not have done so, except for a few - it would have been far better for them and stronger confirmation of their faith, if they had done as they were told, and We would have given them a rich reward of Our own and guided them to a straight path. Whoever obeys Allāh and the Messenger will be among those He has blessed: the messengers, the truthful, those who bear witness to the truth, and the righteous - what excellent companions these are! That is Allāh’s favour. No one knows better than Him.’ (Al-Nisa: 60 -70)

The message contained in these verses is perfectly clear: If we wish to discover the truth concerning Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) and His purposes for humankind we can do so only by obeying His prophets.

By no means is Al-Nisa 65 a command to ‘fight the People of the Book.’

Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) has decreed that one’s religion is a matter of choice:

‘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: 1-6; 29); and again: ‘Had your Lord willed, all the people on earth would have believed. So can you (Prophet) compel people to believe? (Yunus 99).

Khaled M. Abou El Fadl writes:

‘(In fact), it is a part of the Divine objective that people remain different in some significant and important ways. From that perspective, any universalism that would ignore all differences and impose a unitary and single law upon human beings would be challenged by the text of the Qur’an.

‘People may have different laws, creeds, and rituals, but there are moral principles that unite all human beings. While laws pertaining to religious rituals and rites and organizational laws relating to the administration of justice are expected, or even encouraged, to be different, there ought to be considerable space for collective moral pursuits between Muslims and non-Muslims.’ (‘The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists’).

You refer to a narration by Zayd ibn Aslam, concerning this report from his father:

‘I heard ‘Umar in al-Khattab say to an old Christian woman, “Become Muslim, old woman, become Muslim. Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth.” She replied, “I am an old woman and close to death.” ‘Umar said, “O Allah, witness!” and he recited, ‘There is no compulsion where the din is concerned.’"

Note that ‘Umar is calling upon Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) to witness his recitation: ‘There is no compulsion in religion (lā ikrāha fī’l-dīn).’

Why would he do such a thing if this verse has been abrogated?