Immediately following is the famous statement that “there is no compulsion in
religion” (v. 256). Islamic spokesmen in the West frequently quote it to
disprove the contention that Islam spread by the sword, or even to claim that
Islam is a religion of peace. According to an early Muslim, Mujahid ibn Jabr,
this verse was abrogated by Qur’an 9:29, in which the Muslims are commanded to
fight against the People of the Book. Others, however, according to the Islamic
historian Tabari, say that 2:256 was never abrogated, but was revealed precisely
in reference to the People of the Book. They are not to be forced to accept
Islam, but may practice their religions as long as they pay the jizya (poll-tax)
and “feel themselves subdued” (9:29).
Many see v. 256 as contradicting the Islamic imperative to wage jihad against unbelievers, but actually there is no contradiction because the aim of jihad is not the forced conversion of
non-Muslims, but their subjugation within the Islamic social order. Says Asad: “All Islamic jurists (fuqahd’), without any exception, hold that forcible conversion is under all circumstances null and void, and that any attempt at coercing a non-believer to accept the faith of Islam is a grievous sin: a verdict which disposes of the widespread fallacy that Islam places before the unbelievers the alternative of ‘conversion or the sword.’” Quite so: the choice, as laid out by Muhammad himself, is conversion, subjugation as dhimmis, or the
sword. Qutb accordingly denies that v. 256 contradicts the imperative to fight
until “religion is for Allah” (v. 193), saying that “Islam has not used force to
impose its beliefs.” Rather, jihad’s “main objective has been the establishment
of a stable society in which all citizens, including followers of other
religious creeds, may live in peace and security” – although not with equality
of rights before the law, as 9:29 emphasizes. For Qutb, that “stable society” is
the “Islamic social order,” the establishment of which is a chief objective of
jihad.
I think this is the key to the debate about the nature of Islam. When it calls itself a religion of peace, is it the peace of equal coexistence as we see it in the west. Or is it the peace of all groups being in submission and under the rule of law of Islam. When we talk about a choice or religion, is it a choice like we think of in the west of equal choices. Or is it the choice of Islam, death or submission. In the west, we think of all people being equal and having equal rights to practice their faiths and to speak their mind. I don't know that Islam has the same ideas when it is talking about peace, justice and choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment