-
No Compulsion In Religion- Threat Of Punishment
If I go to someone and say ‘accept me as xyz or soon I will kill you’- surely this would counted as ‘compelling someone’ and it would be seen as ‘compulsion’ upon them. I am forcing them at gunpoint to do something.
So when God says there is no compulsion in religion but at the same time is threatening a punishment- how are these two things reconciled?
Is it that there is no compulsion to accept or deny- eg nothing is physically stopping you- but you will reap the fruits of what you choose to do? But then surely the analogy at the start applies
-
36 Replies
-
No Compulsion In Religion- Threat Of Punishment
updated 4 years ago
7 Members
·
36
Replies
-
You are free to choose whether or not to study at this age, but you will be paying the price in future for whatever decision you take. Your parents will do ‘inzar’ but ultimately its your decision and you’ll be the one suffering in the end.
-
But it’s not just doing mere indhar of ‘you should study so you can get a job’. It’s more along the lines of ‘study or I will kill you’. That is what the Quraysh are being told when they hear the stories of Aad and Thamud. So isnt this jabr?
-
Yes there are certain outcomes of their actions, but when the definite outcome is death this is clearly jabr. It is like me holding a gun to someone’s head and saying give me your money and you say all you did was give him an option, he just had to weigh the outcomes. No. It is clear strongarming
-
-
It is my understanding that when it’s says that there is no compulsion – is referring to the free will to choose the path you want to take. One can choose to pick the path that want to follow and see the consequences later on.
Inzaar or itmam e hujjat is showing the truth in its utmost clarity that which path is righteous and must be taken.
if you are referring to quraish then the law of itmam e hujjat will prevail and they will be shown a mini example of judgment Day in the life.
If you are referring to people who do not follow now.. they will meet the consequences in life after death.
Hope this answers your question…
-
This is a very interesting point and I wonder if the Arabic supports such interpretation.
لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ فَمَن يَكْفُرْ بِالطَّاغُوتِ وَيُؤْمِن بِاللَّهِ فَقَدِ اسْتَمْسَكَ بِالْعُرْوَةِ الْوُثْقَىٰ لَا انفِصَامَ لَهَا وَاللَّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيم
2:256
The Quran is saying that there is no compulsion (do what you want), the truth has been made clear from the falsehood.
So I don’t really see how you could take this to mean freewill- it doesn’t seem to fit the context
-
I mean I wonder if it’s the physical ability to be able to choose to disbelieve or believe. I don’t know.
-
-
Because at this stage hujjat hadn’t reached to its completion at this time. The journey had started and was in progress. See the context and not only one ayat perhaps.
Even today, this is true. There is no compulsion in religion. Allah SWT doesn’t ask nor does he need anyone to follow. It is us who once have seen and understood the truth clearly would follow for our own good.
-
Hmmmm… To your second point. That’s exactly what the Qur’an is saying.
“There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.”
To me it means… It is the physical ability to choose which acceptance you want to follow.. but know the result.
-
This ties in with this disucssion: Discussion 41629 . Perhaps it does refer to freewill. What does Ghamidi sahab say on this matter @UmerQureshi ?
-
-
http://lexicon.quranic-research.net/data/22_k/081_krh.htmlHere the word اكره is shown to mean making someone do something against their will. Eg forcing them. Isn’t that what the threats of punishment and reminders of thamud and aad basically boils down to? Accept or I will punish you. That is forcing someone to do something
-
Dear brother, there is “la” right before ikrah. So what it seems to me is that the Qur’an is using the most definitive word instead of words like necessary or must and adding a negative and confirming that no one is forcing you to do anything without your will, i.e., no compulsion.
-
As I showed above ikrah means dislike not really freedom of will
-
-
Pasting image from your link…
-
Dislike is Takrah.. not Ikrah.
-
Yes, it is a different morphology but with same root word. This is sometimes for slight nuance, I forgot what the difference is when it is تفعل form. But still. Both are terms for dislike snd not to do with freewill
-
-
I think the word compulsion refers to free will. It is no different than a criminal committing a crime based on his free will knowing all along that if he is caught he will be jailed. Still many commit crime.
-
I don’t know if the Arabic word allows for that interpretation
-
-
To me rather than being entangled and lost in the weeds and involved in unending discussions, understanding the message at a higher level and within the entire message of Quran allows for better understanding.
-
Yes but the principle of language cannot be ignored
-
-
Did we find a conclusion for this question? I think compulsion relates to this World and our free will. No one is stopping us to follow or not follow Islam…so no compulsion. Just as a criminal is free to commit crimes…there is no compulsion.
-
I.e., they are not much aware of religion and the institution of prophethood and hence deserve to be treated with lenience. It may well be possible that after a long period of preaching and pursuasion some aspect still remains in the conclusive communication of the truth. Hence, if any one of these people need asylum to hear and understand what was being presented to them, Muslims must give him this respite and after reciting and making him understand the word of God transport him to his place of safety so that he can _*calmly reflect and decide whether he has to accept Islam or die*._ After this, obviously he too will have to face the same directive that is mentioned earlier.
This is from Ghamidi sahab’s al bayan. How is this not jabr? Accept Islam or die. How is that not against لا إكراه في الدين?
-
In the name of the all-forgiving.
As I see it.
The question has been answered already in the previous posts though partially.
The compulsion in religion has some facets that are not apparent immediately. For example, can we compel some one to believe? Does it actually happen? We can try to but the heart is allusive and resistant to interrogation. One can profess but still not own it. Religion is always a voluntary acceptance. This is from the perspective of the one on the receiving end. Consider the forced conversions of Muslims to Christianity in Andalusia viz-a-viz Spanish inquisition but those converts would continue to practice Islam in their homes.
Now the one on the giving end is not allowed to because of the futility of this action again because of the above elaboration. Qur’ān forbids it and invites logic to differentiate between the truth and the falsehood.
Secondly, in the day of judgement, after having practiced free will in this life, on my own terms, knowing well the consequences of my actions; I will have to pay the price like I bought a product and I have to pay the price on exit.
For the immediate audience of the Qur’ān that day of judgement had been brought forth “now,” not after death. Now consider this. The deniers of the truth would go to hell on the day of judgement but now, in this life, they are “used” as an example for others to come.
Take this analogy.
A murderer is put to death, in a private room with no audience versus in public. He was destined to die anyways but his death is used for the benefit of others when done in public. The kuffaar were destined to go to hell anyways but their destiny in this life is used for the benefit of others. So I could say they didn’t die in vain rather they taught others what not to do.
No compulsion and Itemaam-e-hujjat are 2 different processes.
Stay blessed, always.
-
👍
-
-
Sorry I don’t get it. The directive of no compulsion was for the same people that itmam e hujjat occurred to. Now if they are being escorted to a safe place to hear the word of God where they can ‘contemplate’ to accept Islam or die- this is like saying if I am holding a gun to someone to give me their money I’m not compelling them- all I’m saying is make your choice and reap its outcomes.
The difference is I am affecting their choice here. The same way someone would be forced to accept Islam if they don’t want to die. Which is 90% of people.
-
Shoaib you answered your question yourself.
If all the given time for those people had expired and Allah had decided that they need to be destroyed, then giving them extra time and another chance to think about is a luxury Allah didn’t give to any other people he destroyed himself in the past.
So I do not see how they were forced to accept Islam.
-
They were not. Surah tawbah says that they hear the word of God snd according to Ghamidi sahab the hearing of the word is completing hujjah, and their choosing to accept or Not will lead tk them being destroyed or not
-
-
As I see it.
Let’s try a different lens and contemplate on the idea that follows.
God says to obey him and be righteousness or you will go to hell. Is that freewill or compulsion to obey him. Is HE holding a gun on my head?
That is 100% of humanity.
Take this life and after life as a continuum and itemaam-e-hujjat will be the day of judgement.
-
It doesn’t compel any one to convert like the compulsion of holding a gun to the head. But perhaps one could argue it is compulsion
-
-
This video might help
-
The nature of universe is cause and effect.
Free will is relative because of the natute of the physical world that has hard limitations and repercussions and morality has repercussions with no hard limitations.
The law of the land says that I will be fined if I drive more than 100km/hr.
My free will and freedom give me the choice of not driving or driving at any speed upto 100km/hr with out penalty or drive faster and accepting the consequences. I choose to drive faster despite knowing the repercussions.
My physical “hard” limitations stop me from flying my car or driving beyond the capabilities of the car or my driving skills which bear repercussions of morbidity or mortality of my body or that of others.
My moral “soft” limitations will “try” to stop me from driving fast but I can still drive disregarding it, for which I will accept and suffer the consequences at my own volition. I have accepted the consequences of injury and or death of myself and also that of other human beings.
The problem is that of confusing compulsion with consequences and also not realizing that there no such thing as absolute free will.
When we figure this out, we will be able to understand “there is no compulsion in religion” and “hell is for the deniers” apparent contradiction.
-
This question is really interesting and can be discussed from different angles. I think the ‘no-compulsion’ stage is applicable before the judgment phase. Once judgment has been declared then it is only up to the discretion of the judge how he is going to deal with the criminal.
Take an example of a psychopath serial killer. He knows very well that taking innocent lives is immoral. He still does it because he is driven by his impulse and complete lack of empathy towards his victims. He is doing the crimes purely for the sake of his own perverted gratification and doesn’t care less what ramifications such behavior would bring about if everyone else started acting such. He is well aware the harsh punishments that are there if he is caught. A close confidant of his, who knows him personally and his crimes, tries to convince him through moral arguments the unethical nature of his actions. He would argue back, “Why do I have to care about the moral standards of the society?, I am independent and just exercising my free will.” His friend would reply, “Yes of course you are free to act whatever you feel, but know that if you are caught, you will have to face punishment for your crimes.” Then a day comes when the psychopath is captured and after the due process he is convicted of the crimes he has committed and faces a death sentence. He himself admits the crimes, but is not remorseful towards his victims nor their families. He couldn’t care less about how his own life is going to end. At this stage the judge declares an additional clause that if he repents publicly showing remorse to the families of his victims and agreeing to improve his behavior, then he can avoid the death sentence but still has to serve a life sentence. The judge has a right to apply the death sentence even if he is repentant. He is just trying to use the threat of punishment to make him realize the absurdity of his hedonistic world view. It is as if the judge is trying to say, “If you don’t care about the lives of other people, then at least care about your own life.” The convict starts to think and philosophize internally: “What does it mean to be repentant? The only way I can be truly repentant is by letting go of my ego and admit the absurdity of my worldview. What if I show an outward form of repentance and save myself from the death sentence? But that would be hypocrisy. What’s wrong with hypocrisy?”
All of these questions and moral dilemmas bring out one thing, we can’t escape morality. We are trapped by it by our own existence. And any moral system would dictate that there has to be consequences for moral actions, no moral system can sustain or stand on a firm foundation if it doesn’t recognize the consequence of moral actions. I think the question about the opening section of surah taubah is arising because we are not treating polytheism as a moral issue. If polytheism is a moral issue then it must have consequences.
To put the above parable in a more general setting, in the larger society we are free to act as we wish. No one is going to force us to act morally. If I have the motivation and opportunity to kill, I will do it. As long as I am not caught by the law & order system, I can continue killing. As soon as I get caught and convicted, I loose my right of exercising free will in the absolute sense. I am now under the discretion of the judicial system. The judicial system can take my life as part of the retribution or allow me to live inside a correctional facility with the condition that I improve my behavior. I don’t have the right to argue with the system that they are forcing me to change my behavior with the threat of the death sentence. I have earned that sentence at the first place. You can now map the various elements of this parable to the case of the judgment that took place in 7th century Arabia.
-
I asked this to Ghamidi sahab in the February QnA and he answered similarly to you. That the time for thinking and repentance ends after itmam ul hujah is completed. So as you said, they have full freewill to act. We accept islam with free will- we are not being forced- even though we have the punishment of hell hanging over us. We are accepting it with freewill. The same thing is with the Quraysh, but their punishment just occurred earlier in this world
-
I didn’t get time to watch Ustad’s reply. Can you please share the specific video with the time stamp? JazakAllah khair!
-
https://youtu.be/i5HQpwNASMk?t=2306 from 38:25
-
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
