Islam By Force!

Answered according to Hanafi Fiqh by

Several narratives mention the duty to fight non-Muslims.
(-Sahih al-Bukhari, 2946: The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said, “I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ his life and property will be saved by me.”
-Tabari, 6, 69: He who believes in God and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions [from us]; as for one who disbelieves, we will fight him forever in the cause of God and killing him is a small matter to us. [Thabit b. Qays b. Shammas, orator and scribe of Mohammed who spoke on his name and in his presence])

My question is: The fight against non-Muslims is it limited to the Arabian Peninsula? The question I have is whether the use of force is restricted to the Arabian Peninsula. Obviously, you understand that I am not asking you if I have the right to go and hit my non-Muslim neighbour. I want to know if the use of force is acceptable for the extension of the Muslim world after the conquest of Arabia.

Several stories mention the duty to expel non-Muslims from the Arabian Peninsula.
(-Sahih Muslim, 1767 a: “The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.”
-Sahih al-Bukhari, 3053: “The Prophet (peace be upon him) on his death-bed, gave three orders saying, ‘Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula”)

It gives the impression that the duty to fight non-Muslims only concerns the Arabian Peninsula.
However, there is this hadith (Sahih al-Bukhari, 3167): While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet (peace be upon him) came out and said, “Let us go to the Jews” We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, “If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle.” 
And I heard that it would be written in the tafsir of ibn kathir abridged by Sheikh Muhammad Nasib Ar-Rafa’i regarding verse 256 of Sura 2: 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.


In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

As-salāmu ‘alaykum wa-rahmatullāhi wa-barakātuh.

Respected Brother,

You enquire if the use of force is acceptable for the extension of the Muslim world. You then refer to a few narrations in support of that. Before answering your question, we wish to advise you on the drawbacks and harms of having such ideas.

Brother, in most Non-Muslim countries around the world, a Muslim is granted with freedom of religion. Muslims are able to practice Islam freely in Non-Muslim countries more than in Muslim countries. This however does not negate the fact that we should desire for a Muslim rule. But this is only possible based on circumstances. As the sphere of the believers expand, the demands of the Deen expand too. However, it should also be understood that obeying the law of the Nation, for as long as it is not against Islam, is mandatory and any action that goes against the law of the nation is impermissible. If someone argues that the believers are required by Allah, under all conditions, to enforce all the laws of their Deen in entirety, it is the same as if someone were to argue that since Zakat is payable on various forms of wealth, it is the duty of every Muslim to try to become the owner of every such form of wealth so that he can fully abide by the duty of giving Zakat! The Shariah, which is the legal and moral code of Islam does not confine itself to only Muslims, depriving the Non-Muslims of their rights. Rather great emphasis has been laid upon the rights of the Non-Muslims.

Indeed, having a Muslim state where there is a freedom of practicing Islam is of intrinsic value and importance. However, despite of its importance, it is just one aspect of Deen. The human mind is a masterpiece. The ideas that a person has, leads to the actions that his body does. The natural corollary of the strong notion of expanding the Muslim Nation in a person is that, it no longer remains just one among many aspects of Deen, instead it comes to be seen as the basis and crux of Deen, which is a misconception. What is meant to be relevant in a particular context is then wrongly interpreted as general in application. This mindset, the distinct mentality compels him to engage in such inordinate exaggeration on the issue that he makes it the entire interpretation of the Deen. This ultimately leads such an individual to commit actions that are contrary to Islamic teachings, falsely believing that it is done for the sake of Deen.

Having said that, let us now analyse some of the narrations that you have quoted in your query:

You quote the first hadith from Bukhari:

The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said, “I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ his life and property will be saved by me.”

This hadith does not incite war with the Non-Muslims, and neither is it referring to all Non-Muslims. The hadith refers to a specific group of people, from a specific place, in specific circumstances.[i] The word Al-Nas in the hadith is in particularly referring to a group of polytheists of Makkah, as is clear from the hadith of Sunan al-Nasai.[ii]

One of the many reasons why such a severe statement was uttered with regards to the polytheists of Arab was due to their treacherous nature, and their bold attitude of openly rejecting anything that went against their customary practices. They were rebellions. Sedition, treason, rioting, insurrection and sabotage was in their blood. It should however be kept in mind that this strict approach was adopted after years of oppression, to the extent of severe physical abuse, by the very same people. Furthermore, what was commanded was a political measure to maintain peace and order in the State, a tool adopted for the welfare of the common people and to safeguard their Iman. This is also understood from the statement of Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (773H-852H), which indicates that those disbelievers who paid jizya or those who were temporary residents in the state, but were at peace with Muslims through specific peace agreements, treaties or other mechanisms were exempted from the implications of the hadith.[iii] Similar view of Imam Malik Ibn Anas(93H-179H) has also been narrated by Imam Ibn Battal(449H) in his commentary of Sahih al-Bukhari.[iv] Civil disobedience is considered a crime by every country in the world. One who violates a law of the country is prosecuted and severely punished. The same applies to the Islamic state and there is nothing wrong with it. Islam in no way oppresses Non-Muslims or coerce people into leaving their land due to their religion. Had it been so, why would there be Islamic injunctions of jizya to provide an umbrella of security for the disbelievers which protects their life, property and honor. Infact, such actions were to remove disorder, strife and fasad.

You further referred to a few narrations which insinuate that Non-Muslims are to be expelled from a Muslim state. As discussed earlier, the narrations of this nature should be looked upon in their original context and setting. To expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula was a decree and policy under the Islamic state. No individual or group of individuals has the right to issue, authorize or enforce a policy himself. These functions are at the core of the social contract between the government and its people.

Furthermore, these narrations must not be generalized. Hazrat Umar (Radhi Allahu anhu) expelled approximately 40,000 Jews during his time of Khilafah. However, none of the Khulafa ever expelled the Jews from Yemen even though Yemen is also part of the Arabian Peninsula.[v] Similarly, Hazrat Abu Ubaida Ibn Jarrah (Radhi Allahu Anhu) narrates that the Prophet commanded to “Expel the Jews from Hijaz, and Ahle Najran from the Arabian Peninsula.” The reason of expulsion of the people of Najran, as explained by Allama Badr al-Din al-Ayni(762H-855H)  (Rahimahullah) , was because of their constant consumption of riba (interest) despite having an agreement with the Prophet (PBUH) to abstain from doing so.[vi]  He also quotes from Muhallab Ibn Abi Sufra(632H-702H) that the mushrikeen of the Arabian peninsula were asked to leave the place due to their disloyalty to the State. They were not loyal to the system and in time helped the opposition in conspiring against the government.[vii] To reiterate, the narrations of this nature are not to be taken at face value and should rather be interpreted in their historical contexts. 

You then quoted the following hadith from Bukhari:

While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet (peace be upon him) came out and said, “Let us go to the Jews” We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, “If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle.”

It is critical that the background of the hadith be known to understand why such a statement was said. A group of Jews from Madina and the surrounding areas were constantly conspiring against Rasulullah Sallallahu Alahihi Wasallam. The obstinacy and the rebelliousness of these Jews was well known. They were stubborn and had no desire whatsoever to accept the truth. Lets take the example of their refusal to accept the change of Qibla which was not based on any proof or a rational argument, rather they were merely bent upon disputing and displaying their arrogance.[viii] Take the example of the Jews breaking the treaty known as the constitution of Madina. Take the example of the moment, when Banu Nazeer, a tribe from the Jews, formed an alliance with the Quraish and incited them to make war against the Prophet. Imagine if all this was done to the Prime Minister/President of a country? The actions taken against such people would have been far worse. 

Nevertheless, Rasulullah Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam desired to distance himself and his people from such mischief makers. Finally, wahi (revelation) was sent to expel the Jews from the Arabian Peninsula. Thus, Rasulullah Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam bequested the Sahaba to expel them. This was not for personal vengeance, rather to prevent these mischievous people from causing any harm to the state and its people. This is further supported by a narration related to Hazrat Umar (Radhi Allahu Anhu). During the Khilafah of Umar Radhi Allahu Anhu, he gathered the Jews and said “Whosoever, has a protection contract from Rasulullah Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam should bring it to me or else I will expel him.”.[ix] This statement, clearly demonstrates that the command was against the mischievous ones and not in general.

Lastly, you refer to Tafseer al-Quran by Imam Ibn Kathir(700H-774H). The reference that you have quoted is not complete in its entirety. The complete extract is as follows:

وَقَدْ ذَهَبَ طَائِفَةٌ كَثِيرَةٌ مِنَ الْعُلَمَاءِ، أَنَّ هَذِهِ مَحْمُولَةٌ عَلَى أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ، وَمَنْ دَخَلَ فِي دِينِهِمْ قَبْلَ النَّسْخِ وَالتَّبْدِيلِ إِذَا بَذَلُوا الْجِزْيَةَ، وَقَالَ آخَرُونَ: بَلْ هِيَ مَنْسُوخَةٌ بِآيَةِ الْقِتَالِ، وَأَنَّهُ يَجِبُ أَنْ يُدْعَى جَمِيعُ الْأُمَمِ إِلَى الدُّخُولِ فِي الدِّينِ الْحَنِيفِ، دِينِ الْإِسْلَامِ، فَإِنْ أَبَى أَحَدٌ مِنْهُمُ الدُّخُولَ فِيهِ، وَلَمْ يَنْقَدْ لَهُ أَوْ يَبْذُلِ الْجِزْيَةَ، قُوتِلَ حَتَّى يُقْتَلَ، وَهَذَا مَعْنَى الْإِكْرَاهِ

Translation: The vast majority of the Ulama are of the view that this Ayah is referring to the People of the book, and to those who entered their religion before the abrogation and changing, while they would pay jizya. And others have stated that the verse has been abrogated by the verses of war, and that it is necessary to call all people to Islam and if anyone does not approach it with acceptance and refuses to pay jizya he will be fought against, until he is killed. And this is the meaning of coercion.

In the above extract, Ibn Kathir (Rahimahullah) discusses the following aayah:

‘لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ’

“There is no compulsion in deen”.

The discussion is with regards to the abrogation of this verse. Therefore, he brings two different views of the scholars on the matter. It can clearly be seen that the first view of majority of the Ulama, one that you have omitted in your query, clearly reject the notion of the verse being abrogated.

The great exegete Imam Zamakhshari (467H-538H) as well denies the view that the verse is abrogated, as many have claimed. He clearly states that making a choice between war and peace is a political matter and is under the jurisdiction of the Imam and him alone. If he sees good for his people in peace, he will make peace and if he predicts harm drawing towards his people, he will seek war to protect them.[x]

Similarly, Imam Jareer Tabri (224H-310H) while discussing the same ayah, brings a lot of views pertaining to the abrogation of the verse and then he himself concludes the discussion by completely rejecting the view that the ayah of peace is abrogated by the verses of war.[xi]

Hazrat Maulana Shafi Sahib (Rahimahullah) in his tafseer ‘Ma’ariful Quran’ narrates an incident of Hazrat Umar RadhiAllahu Anhu, which is an eye opener for those who believe that people can be forced to accept Islam. When Sayyidna Umar RadhiAllahu Anhu invited an old Christian woman to accept Islam, she said in reply:

أنا عجوز كبيرة و الموت الي القريب (I am an old woman nearing death.)

Hearing this, Sayyidna Umar did not force her to come into the fold of Islam. Infact, he recited this very verse ‘ لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ’(There is no compulsion in faith).[xii]

Peace is the default nature and essence of Islam and it shall always remain. Forcing people into Islam was never part of Islam and will never be. There are several other verses which support this view. For example,

وَإِن جَنَحُوا لِلسَّلْمِ فَاجْنَحْ لَهَا وَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ إِنَّهُ هُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ

Translation: “But if the enemy inclines towards peace, you too incline towards peace and put your trust in Allah. Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.”

To conclude, such verses of the Quran are not cases of abrogation but rather of context. In certain places, verses of peace, patience and forbearance apply, whereas in certain other places, verses of the sword apply.[xiii] A few of the Scholars displaying their view contrary to this, does not make it part of the Shariah.

In conclusion, a Muslim is in no way allowed to cause harm unjustly to any living being, let alone our Non-Muslims Brothers. We must look for ways to bridge the gap between us and better the community rather than incite hatred within the community. There is no justification for extremism in Islam and we denounce it in the strongest possible terms. You don’t have to obsess about an Islamic state, rather continue doing good and connect yourself to Allah Ta’ala for your spiritual growth. Spiritual upliftment in addition with our association with Allah Ta’ala leads to a community which is the desired outcome of an Islamic State.



And Allah Ta’āla Knows Best

Naved Akhtar Ibn Shabbir.

Student – Darul Iftaa

Shillong, India.

Checked and Approved by,

Mufti Ebrahim Desai.






[i] الكوثر الجاري إلى رياض أحاديث البخاري (1/ 79)

إن قلتَ: الحديث دلَّ على أن لا يُترَكَ الكافرُ على دينه بوجهٍ؟ وكذا الآية في الترجمة، فكيف أُخذتِ الجزيةُ من أهل الكتاب؟ قلتُ: إما أن يُحمل اللام في الناس على العهد وهم المشركون عبدةُ الأوثان، كما هو مقتضى الآية، فإنها فيهم نزلت. دلَّ عِليه السياقُ. وإمّا أنه عام خصّ منه البعض بقوله: {قَاتِلُوا الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلَا بِالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَلَا يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلَا يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حَتَّى يُعْطُوا الْجِزْيَةَ عَنْ يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ} [التوبة: 29].



[ii] فتح الباري لابن حجر (1/ 77)

ثَالِثُهَا أَنْ يَكُونَ مِنَ الْعَامِّ الَّذِي أُرِيدَ بِهِ الْخَاصُّ فَيَكُونُ الْمُرَادُ بِالنَّاسِ فِي قَوْلِهِ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ أَيِ الْمُشْرِكِينَ مِنْ غَيْرِ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ وَيَدُلُّ عَلَيْهِ رِوَايَةُ النَّسَائِيِّ بِلَفْظِ أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ

[iii] فتح الباري لابن حجر (1/ 77)

فَإِنْ قِيلَ مُقْتَضَى الْحَدِيثِ قِتَالُ كُلِّ مَنِ امْتَنَعَ مِنَ التَّوْحِيدِ فَكَيْفَ تُرِكَ قِتَالُ مُؤَدِّي الْجِزْيَةِ وَالْمُعَاهَدِ فَالْجَوَابُ مِنْ أَوْجُهٍ أَحَدُهَا دَعْوَى النَّسْخِ بِأَنْ يَكُونَ الْإِذْنُ بِأَخْذِ الْجِزْيَةِ وَالْمُعَاهَدَةِ مُتَأَخِّرًا عَنْ هَذِهِ الْأَحَادِيثِ بِدَلِيلِ أَنَّهُ مُتَأَخِّرٌ عَنْ قَوْلِهِ تَعَالَى اقْتُلُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ ثَانِيهَا أَنْ يَكُونَ مِنَ الْعَامِّ الَّذِي خُصَّ مِنْهُ الْبَعْضُ لِأَنَّ الْمَقْصُودَ مِنَ الْأَمْرِ حُصُولُ الْمَطْلُوبِ فَإِذَا تَخَلَّفَ الْبَعْضُ لِدَلِيلٍ لَمْ يَقْدَحْ فِي الْعُمُومِ ثَالِثُهَا أَنْ يَكُونَ مِنَ الْعَامِّ الَّذِي أُرِيدَ بِهِ الْخَاصُّ فَيَكُونُ الْمُرَادُ بِالنَّاسِ فِي قَوْلِهِ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ أَيِ الْمُشْرِكِينَ مِنْ غَيْرِ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ وَيَدُلُّ عَلَيْهِ رِوَايَةُ النَّسَائِيِّ بِلَفْظِ أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ فَإِنْ قِيلَ إِذَا تَمَّ هَذَا فِي أَهْلِ الْجِزْيَةِ لَمْ يَتِمَّ فِي الْمُعَاهَدِينَ وَلَا فِيمَنْ مَنَعَ الْجِزْيَةَ أُجِيبَ بِأَنَّ الْمُمْتَنِعَ فِي تَرْكِ الْمُقَاتَلَةِ رَفْعُهَا لَا تَأْخِيرُهَا مُدَّةً كَمَا فِي الْهُدْنَةِ وَمُقَاتَلَةُ مَنِ امْتَنَعَ مِنْ أَدَاءِ الْجِزْيَةِ بِدَلِيلِ الْآيَةِ رَابِعُهَا أَنْ يَكُونَ الْمُرَادُ بِمَا ذُكِرَ مِنَ الشَّهَادَةِ وَغَيْرِهَا التَّعْبِيرَ عَنْ إِعْلَاءِ كَلِمَةِ اللَّهِ وَإِذْعَانَ الْمُخَالِفِينَ فَيَحْصُلُ فِي بَعْضٍ بِالْقَتْلِ وَفِي بَعْضٍ بِالْجِزْيَةِ وَفِي بَعْضٍ بِالْمُعَاهَدَةِ خَامِسُهَا أَنْ يَكُونَ الْمُرَادُ بِالْقِتَالِ هُوَ أَوْ مَا يَقُومُ مَقَامَهُ مِنْ جِزْيَةٍ أَوْ غَيْرِهَا سَادِسُهَا أَنْ يُقَالَ الْغَرَضُ مِنْ ضَرْبِ الْجِزْيَةِ اضْطِرَارُهُمْ إِلَى الْإِسْلَامِ وَسَبَبُ السَّبَبِ سَبَبٌ فَكَأَنَّهُ قَالَ حَتَّى يُسْلِمُوا أَوْ يَلْتَزِمُوا مَا يُؤَدِّيهِمْ إِلَى الْإِسْلَامِ وَهَذَا أَحْسَنُ وَيَأْتِي فِيهِ مَا فِي الثَّالِثِ وَهُوَ آخر الاجوبه وَالله أعلم

[iv]   شرح صحيح البخارى لابن بطال (5/ 330)

وحجة مالك حديث عبد الرحمن بن عوف (أن النبى (صلى الله عليه وسلم) أخذ الجزية من مجوس هجر) وقال فى المجوس: (سنوا بهم سنة أهل الكتاب فى أخذ الجزية منهم) وأيضًا فإن النبى (صلى الله عليه وسلم) كان يبعث أمراء السرايا فيقول لهم: (إذا لقيتم العدو فادعوهم إلى الإسلام، فإن أجابوا وإلا فالجزية، فإن أعطوا وإلا فقاتلوهم) ولم ينص على مشرك دون مشرك، بل عم جميع المشركين؛ لأن الكفر يجمعهم، ولما جاز أن يسترقهم جاز أن يأخذ منهم الجزية،

[v] عمدة القاري شرح صحيح البخاري (14/ 299)

وَلم يتفرغ أَبُو بكر الصّديق، رَضِي الله تَعَالَى عَنهُ لذَلِك، فأجلاهم عمر، رَضِي الله تَعَالَى عَنهُ قيل: كَانُوا أَرْبَعِينَ ألفا وَلم ينْقل عَن أحد من الْخُلَفَاء أَنه أجلاهم من الْيمن، مَعَ أَنَّهَا من جَزِيرَة الْعَرَب

[vi] عمدة القاري شرح صحيح البخاري (14/ 299)

وروى أَحْمد من حَدِيث أبي عُبَيْدَة بن الْجراح، رَضِي الله تَعَالَى عَنهُ: (أخرجُوا يهود الْحجاز، وَأهل نَجْرَان من جَزِيرَة الْعَرَب) ، وَإِنَّمَا أخرج أهل نَجْرَان من الجزيرة، وَإِن لم تكن من الْحجاز، لِأَنَّهُ صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسلم صَالحهمْ على أَن لَا يَأْكُلُوا الرِّبَا فأكلوه

[vii] عمدة القاري شرح صحيح البخاري (15/ 90)

وَقَالَ الْمُهلب: إِنَّمَا أَمر بإخراجهم خوف التَّدْلِيس مِنْهُم. وَأَنَّهُمْ مَتى رَأَوْا عدوا قَوِيا صَارُوا مَعَه، كَمَا فعلوا برَسُول الله، صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسلم، يَوْم الْأَحْزَاب.

[viii] Ma’aariful Quran, Vol-4, Pg 382-396 (Maktaba Darul Uloom, Karachi)

[ix] عمدة القاري شرح صحيح البخاري (15/ 89)

مطابقته للتَّرْجَمَة من حَيْثُ أَن النَّبِي صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسلم أَرَادَ أَن يخرج الْيَهُود لِأَنَّهُ كَانَ يكره أَن يكون بِأَرْض الْعَرَب غير الْمُسلمين لِأَنَّهُ امتحن فِي اسْتِقْبَال الْقبْلَة حَتَّى نزل: {قد نرى تقلب وَجهك فِي السَّمَاء} (الْبَقَرَة: 441) . الْآيَة: وامتحن مَعَ بني النَّضِير حِين أَرَادوا الْغدر بِهِ، وَأَن يلْقوا عَلَيْهِ حجرا، فَأمره الله بإجلائهم وإخراجهم، وَترك سَائِر الْيَهُود، وَكَانَ يَرْجُو أَن يُحَقّق الله رغبته فِي إبعاد الْيَهُود عَن جواره فَلم يوحِ إِلَيْهِ فِي ذَلِك شَيْء إِلَى أَن حَضرته الْوَفَاة، فَأُوحي إِلَيْهِ فِيهِ، فَقَالَ: لَا يبْقين دينان بِأَرْض الْعَرَب، وَأوصى بذلك عِنْد مَوته، فَلَمَّا كَانَ فِي خلَافَة عمر، رَضِي الله تَعَالَى عَنهُ، قَالَ: من كَانَ عِنْده عهد من رَسُول الله، صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسلم، فليأت بِهِ، وإلاَّ فَإِنِّي مجليكم فأجلاهم.

[x] تفسير الزمخشري = الكشاف عن حقائق غوامض التنزيل (2/ 233)

وعن ابن عباس رضى الله عنه أن الآية منسوخة بقوله تعالى قاتِلُوا الَّذِينَ لا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وعن مجاهد بقوله فَاقْتُلُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدْتُمُوهُمْ والصحيح أن الأمر موقوف على ما يرى فيه الامام صلاح الإسلام وأهله من حرب أو سلم، وليس بحتم أن يقاتلوا أبدا، أو يجابوا إلى الهدنة أبداً.

[xi] تفسير الطبري = جامع البيان ت شاكر (5/ 414)

ال أبو جعفر: وأولى هذه الأقوال بالصواب قول من قال: نزلت هذه الآية في خاص من الناس- وقال: عنى بقوله تعالى ذكره: “لا إكراه في الدين”، أهل الكتابين والمجوس وكل من جاء إقراره على دينه المخالف دين الحق، وأخذ الجزية منه، وأنكروا أن يكون شيء منها منسوخا (1) .

وإنما قلنا هذا القول أولى الأقوال في ذلك بالصواب، لما قد دللنا عليه في كتابنا (كتاب اللطيف من البيان عن أصول الأحكام) : من أن الناسخ غير كائن ناسخا إلا ما نفى حكم المنسوخ، فلم يجز اجتماعهما. فأما ما كان ظاهره العموم من الأمر والنهي، وباطنه الخصوص، فهو من الناس والمنسوخ بمعزل (2) .

وإذ كان ذلك كذلك = وكان غير مستحيل أن يقال: لا إكراه لأحد ممن أخذت منه الجزية في الدين، ولم يكن في الآية دليل على أن تأويلها بخلاف ذلك، وكان المسلمون جميعا قد نقلوا عن نبيهم صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه أكره على الإسلام قوما فأبى أن يقبل منهم إلا الإسلام، وحكم بقتلهم إن امتنعوا منه، وذلك كعبدة الأوثان من مشركي العرب، وكالمرتد عن دينه دين الحق إلى الكفر ومن أشبههم، وأنه ترك إكراه الآخرين على الإسلام بقبوله الجزية منه وإقراره على دينه الباطل، وذلك كأهل الكتابين ومن أشبههم = (1) كان بينا بذلك أن معنى قوله: “لا إكراه في الدين”، إنما هو لا إكراه في الدين لأحد ممن حل قبول الجزية منه بأدائه الجزية، ورضاه بحكم الإسلام.

ولا معنى لقول من زعم أن الآية منسوخة الحكم، بالإذن بالمحاربة.

[xii] Ma’ariful Quran, Vol-1, Pg:639(Maktaba Darul Uloom, Karachi)

[xiii] Al-Itqan fi Ulum al-Quran, Surah al-Tauba, Ayah-5.


This answer was collected from, which is operated under the supervision of Mufti Ebrahim Desai from South Africa.

Find more answers indexed from:
Read more answers with similar topics:
Subscribe to IslamQA Weekly Newsletter

Subscribe to IslamQA Weekly Newsletter

You will receive 5 Q&A in your inbox every week

We have sent a confirmation to you. Please check the and confirm your subscription. Thank you!