That's the first time i've heard it explained that way. Sources?
Ok, you made me do a bit of homework. I hate doing homework.
Anywayz, upshot of it is that the stuff about Islamic jurisprudence is solid (I knew it was).
If you want a quick rundown on it, have a read of this PDF:
Islam and Religious FreedomLonger version here if you want your brain frazzled:
No compulsion in religion: Q. 2:256 in Medieval and Modern InterpretationThe stuff about Islam being regarded as the "truth" that "stands out from error" is also obviously the case, since Mohammed obviously did claim Islam was the true religion, and Christianity and Judaism were not. However, even in cases where it (2:256) was accepted to mean "no forced conversions" that was only accepted as applying to "People of the Book", and not to everyone.
So, for example, it wouldn't have been taken as applying to polytheists, or atheists for that matter. See
Islam Question and Answer: There is no compulsion to accept Islam for a standard position.
The scholars explained that these two verses, and other similar verses, have to do with those from whom the jizyah may be taken, such as Jews, Christians and Magians (Zoroastrians). They are not to be forced, rather they are to be given the choice between becoming Muslim or paying the jizyah.
Other scholars said that this applied in the beginning, but was subsequently abrogated by Allaah’s command to fight and wage jihad. So whoever refuses to enter Islam should be fought when the Muslims are able to fight, until they either enter Islam or pay the jizyah if they are among the people who may pay jizyah. The kuffaar should be compelled to enter Islam if they are not people from whom the jizyah may be taken, because that will lead to their happiness and salvation in this world and in the Hereafter.
Regarding the stuff about kids being raised Muslim or Jewish, it seems that the most authoritative sources (some Muslim, but including Patricia Crone) are saying that the verse actually refers to not forcing kids (born of non-Jewish mothers) who were already being raised as Jews (due to oaths sworn by their birth mothers) to convert back to Islam. So, at the moment I can't find a really solid source that says it was the other way around (ie: about
not raising the kids as Jews).
Next question is: where did I get that idea from? Did some more digging, and it seems to be something I picked up here. This indicates that, since the people I apparently picked it up from are ex-Muslims, it must have been something they were taught at some stage. Examples:
Reflections on 'There is no compulsion in religion' from Surat Al-Baqarah
Al-Alethia:
The verse was actually revealed in relation to some Arabs who took oaths that their children will be raised Jewish; it's basically telling them that there's "no compulsion in religion" in the sense that they don't have to follow the oath and make sure the kids are Jewish, i.e, they can convert them to Islam.
No compulsion in religion? What does the Quran say?I thought the no compulsion in religion verse was used to end a Arabian tradition of promising to convert their sick children to Judaism if they survived the sickness.
Yeah what Woodrow said. Within context that's what it meant.
Secular society versus Religious societyCountering this verse using abrogation is only one angle.
In fact this verse when revealed was intended to convince the pagans that when they converted to Islam that it was not compulsory for their children to remain in their religion of birth. Therefore they should be converted also.
Also in those days when children got sick parents prayed that if they got better they would convert them to Judaism. Muhammad revealed this verse to tell them there was no compulsion to convert to Judaism.
Here is the hadith that explains its origins:
When the children of a woman (in pre-islamic days) did not survive, she took a vow on herself that if her child survives, she would convert it to a Jew. When Banu an-Nadir were expelled (from Arabia), there were some children of the Ansar (helpers) among them. They said: We shall not leave our children. So Allah the Exalted revealed; ?Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from error.? (SAD 14:2676)
So what was really meant by this verse is Islam is truth and other religions are error. Do not leave your children in other religions but convert them to Islam.
It was strictly one way. Once in Islam you are under compulsion to stay Muslim.
So the need to bring up naskh (abrogration) is not even necessary for this verse.
Now I'm not sure where they got this interpretation from. On the face of it though, it does appear to be as plausible as the opposite interpretation. The verse itself doesn't actually say whose children were involved, or how. The relevant hadith seems ambiguous, in that (at least in the English translation) it's hard to figure out who is saying they won't abandon their kids (birth parents or foster parents?) and equally hard to figure out whether the hadith is claiming that the kids in question should be left to be raised as Jews or not. It could be read either way.
Ok you murtadeen, what's going on here? Calling all CEMB shcolars!
Topic: How to point out problems in the Quran and what?