The reason for the revelation of this verse was that the women of Ansar used to make a vow to convert their sons to Judaism if the latter lived. And when the tribe of Bani an-Nadhir was expelled from Madinah, some children of Ansar were among them, so their parents could not abandon them; hence Allah revealed: "There is no compulsion in religion…" narrated by Ibn Jarir, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, Abu Dawud and an-Nasa’I, on the authority of Bandar, Abu Hatim, and Ibn Hiban from the Hadith of Shu’bah, Mujahid and others. However Muhammad Ibn Ishaq narrated that Ibn Abbas said: it was revealed with regard to a man from the tribe of Bani Salim Ibn Awf called al-Husayni whose two sons converted to Christianity but he was himself a Muslim. He told the Prophet: "Shall I force them to embrace Islam, they insist on Christianity", hence Allah revealed this verse. But, this verse is abrogated by the verse of "Fighting": "You shall be called to fight against a people given to great warfare, then you shall fight them, or they shall surrender" (sura 48:16). Allah also says: "O Prophet! Strive hard against the disbelieves and the hypocrites, and be harsh against them" (9:73), and He says, "O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who are the Pious, (9:123).  

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. In the Sahih (al-Bukhari), the Prophet said: "Allah wonders at those people who will enter Paradise in chains", meaning prisoners brought in chains to the Islamic state, then they embrace Islam sincerely and become righteous, and are entered among the people of Paradise .  

He clearly says that this verse has been abrogated by verse “FIGHTING”. And it must be obeyed. If jihad is not fought with the intent to convert one by force to Islam, then there is no need for the “FIGHTING” verse to abrogate this “NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION VERSE”.    

The internet edition (at www.tafsir.com) of the tafsir Ibn kathir presents an interesting Hadith of Imam Ahmad and says it is authentic. In this hadith Anas said that the Messenger of Allah said to a man, "Embrace Islam.'' The man said, "I dislike it.'' The Prophet said, "Even if you dislike it.'' 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.'  

When, tafsir Ibn kathir gives a stamp of authority to this Hadith, then I find no relevance to the verse 2:256 because the so called best Muslim and the best human being on earth according to muslims (i.e. prophet Muhammad) didn’t follow it. I see know reason why other Muslims will follow it.  

Moreover Ibn kathir’s tafsir makes it clear this verse was meant to a particular situation and has been abrogated 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.  

I believe this information is sufficient to prove that this verse (2:256) no longer has and had any relevance to today’s world and in the Islamic history respectively.  

Still have doubts, now here is the stumper.  

Koran 3:85

If anyone desires a religion other than Islam,
never will it be accepted of him; and in the
Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have
lost all spiritual good. 

After all this any apologetic view that Islam is tolerant towards other religions is nothing but a sham.  

Allah: “Muslims will conquer the Known World, and ultimately the Entire World”    

Koran 48:28  

It is He Who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to proclaim it over all religion: and enough is Allah for a Witness.  

 Ibn Kathir, says this in his tafsir on the above mentioned vers:.  

The Good News that Muslims will conquer the Known World, and ultimately the Entire World

Allah the Exalted and Most Honored said, while delivering the glad tidings to the believers that the Messenger will triumph over his enemies and the rest of the people of the earth,

[هُوَ الَّذِي أَرْسَلَ رَسُولَهُ بِالْهُدَى وَدِينِ الْحَقِّ]

(He it is Who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth,) with beneficial knowledge and righteous good deeds. Indeed, the Islamic Shari `ah has two factors, knowledge and deeds. The true religious knowledge is by definition true, and the accepted Islamic acts are by definition accepted. Therefore, the news and creed that this religion conveys are true and its commandments are just,

[لِيُظْهِرَهُ عَلَى الدِّينِ كُلِّهِ]

(that He may make it superior to all religi- ons.) all the religions of the people of the earth, Arabs and non-Arabs alike, whether having certain ideologies or being atheists or idolators.

[وَكَفَى بِاللَّهِ شَهِيداً]

(And All-Sufficient is Allah as a Witness.) that Muhammad is His Messenger and that He will grant him victory. Allah the Exalted and Most Honored has the best knowledge.

[مُّحَمَّدٌ رَّسُولُ اللَّهِ وَالَّذِينَ مَعَهُ أَشِدَّآءُ عَلَى الْكُفَّارِ رُحَمَآءُ بَيْنَهُمْ تَرَاهُمْ رُكَّعاً سُجَّداً يَبْتَغُونَ فَضْلاً مِّنَ اللَّهِ وَرِضْوَاناً سِيمَـهُمْ فِى وُجُوهِهِمْ مِّنْ أَثَرِ السُّجُودِ ذَلِكَ مَثَلُهُمْ فِى التَّوْرَاةِ وَمَثَلُهُمْ فِى الإِنجِيلِ كَزَرْعٍ أَخْرَجَ شَطْأَهُ فَآزَرَهُ فَاسْتَغْلَظَ فَاسْتَوَى عَلَى سُوقِهِ يُعْجِبُ الزُّرَّاعَ لِيَغِيظَ بِهِمُ الْكُفَّارَ وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ وَعَمِلُواْ الصَّـلِحَـتِ مِنْهُم مَّغْفِرَةً وَأَجْراً عَظِيماً ]

 Muhammad’s religion is set to conquer the entire world and the option we have is to fight back to save ourselves.  

Are we being told the truth about jihad?  

The answer is NO. Allow me to Quote Daniel pipes,   in his article Jihad: How Academics Have Camouflaged Its Real Meaning. He deals extensively about this, how we have been cheated into believing jihad is a fight against injustice and human rights violation ( indeed jihad involves both of them)  

One can read the entire article here: http://hnn.us/articles/1136.html  

Let me quote passages from his article.  

“through an examination of media statements by such university-based specialists, they tend to portray the phenomenon of jihad in a remarkably similar fashion—only, the portrait happens to be false.

JIHAD: THE PROFESSORS' VIEW

SEVERAL INTERLOCKING themes emerge from the more than two dozen experts I surveyed.* Only four of them admit that jihad has any military component whatsoever, and even they, with but a single exception, insist that this component is purely defensive in nature. Valerie Hoffman of the University of Illinois is unique in saying (as paraphrased by a journalist) that "no Muslim she knew would have endorsed such terrorism [as the attacks of September 11], as it goes against Islamic rules of engagement." No other scholar would go so far as even this implicit hint that jihad includes an offensive component.

Thus, John Esposito of Georgetown , perhaps the most visible academic scholar of Islam, holds that "in the struggle to be a good Muslim, there may be times where one will be called upon to defend one's faith and community. Then [jihad] can take on the meaning of armed struggle." Another specialist holding this view is Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im of Emory, who explains that "War is forbidden by the shari'a [Islamic law] except in two cases: self-defense, and the propagation of the Islamic faith." According to Blake Burleson of Baylor, what this means is that, in Islam, an act of aggression like September 11 "would not be considered a holy war."

To another half-dozen scholars in my survey, jihad may likewise include militarily defensive engagements, but this meaning is itself secondary to lofty notions of moral self-improvement. Charles Kimball, chairman of the department of religion at Wake Forest, puts it succinctly: jihad "means struggling or striving on behalf of God. The great jihad for most is a struggle against oneself. The lesser jihad is the outward, defensive jihad." Pronouncing similarly are such authorities as Mohammad Siddiqi of Western Illinois, John Iskander of Georgia State , Mark Woodard of Arizona State , Taha Jabir Al-Alwani of the graduate school of Islamic and social sciences in Leesburg , Virginia , and Barbara Stowasser of Georgetown .

But an even larger contingent—nine of those surveyed—deny that jihad has any military meaning whatsoever. For Joe Elder, a professor of sociology at the University of Wisconsin , the idea that jihad means holy war is "a gross misinterpretation." Rather, he says, jihad is a "religious struggle, which more closely reflects the inner, personal struggles of the religion." For Dell DeChant, a professor of world religions at the University of South Florida , the word as "usually understood" means "a struggle to be true to the will of God and not holy war."

Concurring views have been voiced by, among others, John Kelsay of John Carroll University , Zahid Bukhari of Georgetown , and James Johnson of Rutgers . Roxanne Euben of Wellesley College, the author of The Road to Kandahar: A Genealogy of Jihad in Modern Islamist Political Thought, asserts that "For many Muslims, jihad means to resist temptation and become a better person." John Parcels, a professor of philosophy and religious studies at Georgia Southern University, defines jihad as a struggle "over the appetites and your own will." For Ned Rinalducci, a professor of sociology at Armstrong Atlantic State University , the goals of jihad are: "Internally, to be a good Muslim. Externally, to create a just society." And Farid Eseck, professor of Islamic studies at Auburn Seminary in New York City , memorably describes jihad as "resisting apartheid or working for women's rights."

Finally, there are those academics who focus on the concept of jihad in the sense of "self-purification" and then proceed to universalize it, applying it to non-Muslims as well as Muslims. Thus, to Bruce Lawrence, a prominent professor of Islamic studies at Duke, not only is jihad itself a highly elastic term ("being a better student, a better colleague, a better business partner. Above all, to control one's anger"), but non-Muslims should also "cultivate . . . a civil virtue known as jihad":

Jihad? Yes, jihad . . . a jihad that would be a genuine struggle against our own myopia and neglect as much as it is against outside others who condemn or hate us for what we do, not for what we are. . . . For us Americans, the greater jihad would mean that we must review U.S. domestic and foreign policies in a world that currently exhibits little signs of promoting justice for all.

Here we find ourselves returned to the sentiments expressed by the Harvard commencement speaker, who sought to convince his audience that jihad is something all Americans should admire.

<  back      next  >