Talk:Al-Baqara 256

This could do with some more development (over verbatim dumping of the hadith texts). Regarding the 2006 exchange, clearly the "36 scholars" sending the pope a letter embrace the interpretation of Ibn Kathir. Now, they probably didn't get as far as grasping what Ratzinger was saying (who was no idiot), which was that pace Ibn Kathir, the original meaning of the verse was different, as suggested by the Sunan Abu Dawud (namely, there should be no "compulsion" in converting an infant to Judaism). Also, Ibn Kathir is giving his own spin to the story told by Anas that "the Messenger of Allah said to a man 'Embrace Islam'. The man said, 'I dislike it'. The Prophet said '[Embrace it] even if you dislike it'." which when read on its own sounds pretty straight-forward and as it were straight from the script of a mob movie (the man is made "an offer he cannot refuse":)

This needs to be based on actual scholarly literature of course. E.g. discussion of the addition "the right way is indeed clearly distinct from error". I think it will turn out the meaning of the verse is that "it is impossible to compel anyone to follow any other religion than the correct one, because its truth is self-evident" and not that there should be "no compulsion to abandon a false religion". Now Ibn Kathir in the 14th century is clearly at pains to spin the verse into exactly this reading, which is an interesting point in its own right (possibly documenting a current of religious tolerance at that time).

Again, what is lacking here are references to actual scholarly literature discussing these points. --dab (𒁳) 13:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The various interpretations of "no compulsion in religion" are given in this 2007 article *Islam and Religious Freedom* by Patricia Crone: [[1]]. Her conclusion is that there's no consensus view. I will add a link to the article under Modern Debate. -- Passerby, 222.165.111.191 (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.165.111.191 (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Claims of abrogation.

There are conditions that are to be met so that a particular verse is an instance of abrogation, however 2:256 isn't abrogated by 9:5 for instance since:

Al-Dausiri rejects this statement because of the following: A verse cannot abrogate another verse unless it completely removes the ruling of the earlier verse and there is no way to reconcile the contradictory meanings of the verses. (Zarabozo, There is No Compulsion in Religion, Al-Basheer)

Furthermore,

At the same time, one can say that the death penalty for apostasy – especially when it is considered as a hadd (prescribed) punishment – contradicts the Qur'anic principle [law] in Surah II, verse 256, which proclaims "No compulsion in religion." Ibn Hazm, to avoid this criticism, claimed that this verse had been abrogated and that compulsion is allowed in religion; consequently, according to him, the punishment for apostasy does not contradict the Qur'an (fn. Muhalla, vol. XI, p. 195). However, this claim is invalid, since Qur'anic scholars have established the abrogated verses and this verse is not among them (fn. Suyuti, Itqan, vol. II, p. 22-24). Accordingly, one can say with the Encyclopaedia of Islam that "In the Qur'an the apostate is threatened with punishment in the next world only." (fn. Heffening, Encyclopaedia of Islam, vol. III, p. 736 under "Murtadd"). (El-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law; US American Trust Publications, 1993, p. 51, emphasis added) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HakimPhilo (talk • contribs) 13:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The majority view has been that the verse was abrogated. Some Islamic scholars have disagreed. Both views need to be mentioned for NPOV. RLoutfy (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Your claim is baseless, the majority view is that the verse wasn't abrogated, Ibn Taymiyya states in his book Al-Siyasah Al-Char'iyah comemnting on those who claim that 2:256 was abrogated:

جمهور السلف أنها ليست منسوخة ولا مخصوصة وإنا النص عام , فلا نكره أحداً على الدين , والقتال لمن حاربنا فإن أسلم عصم ماله ودينه , وإذا لم يكن من أهل القتال لا نقتله و ولا يقدر أحد قط أن ينقل أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أكره أحداً على الإسلام لا ممتنعاً ولا مقدوراً عليه و ولا فائدة في إسلام مثل هذا لكن من أسلم قبل إسلامه The majority of the Salaf said that it wasn't abrogated nor specified but the text is general, so we don't force anyone into this religion, and fighting is for those who fight us, ..., and if he isn't amongst the people of fighting then we don't fight him and no one can narrate that the Prophet Peace Be Upon Him forced anyone to Islam ...

— Ibn Taymiyya

Furthermore the verse isn't an earlier revelation, it is a Madani verse, when the Muslims had a state and were able to fight. The article is thus POV. And furthermore it is mainly based on "Patricia Crone, Islam and Religious Freedom (PDF)," which further makes it POV. --CounterTime (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, you messed up the article so much that in the beginning we read "... was an early revelation ..." by the majority of Islamic scholars, and then you go on and claim that "According to Islamic tradition, this verse was revealed to Muhammad during the Invasion of Banu Nadir.", which was in 4 AH. --CounterTime (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Believe what you want, but in wikipedia you need to present verifiable publications from scholars. What you write above is wrong, and sources in the article amply justify that. If you have a reliable source, read WP:RS to understand what that means, we can consider and include them. Further, don't make personal attacks, as you did here. RLoutfy (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Look at all the references I cited:

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Ahkam Ahl al-Dhimma, pp.21-22.

Al-Tabari, Jāmi` al-bayān `an ta'wīl āy al-Qur'ān 4, Dar Hajar, 2001, p.553.

Abi 'Ubayd, Kitab al-Nasikh wa al-Mansukh, p.282.

Al-Jaṣṣās, Aḥkām al-Qur'ān 2, p.168.

Makki bin Abi Talib, al-Idah li Nasikh al-Qur'an wa Mansukhih, p. 194.

Abu Ja'far al-Nahhas, al-Nasikh wa al-Mansukh fi al-Quran al-Karim, p.259.

Ibn Jizziy. at-Tasheel. p. 135.

Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti, Al-Itqān fi ‘Ulum Al-Qur’an 2. p.22-24.

So all of this for you to allegedly claim that what I stated was wrong? Yes, these are primary sources, but we can include them if we reach a consensus on the translation and what was meant by them. --CounterTime (talk) 11:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

You first claimed that "The majority view has been that the verse was abrogated" and then you said "but in wikipedia you need to present verifiable publications from scholars.", so all those direct references to all these scholars' writings (which you can verify by yourself) who said that it wasn't abrogated including Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Al-Tabari, Abi 'Ubayd, Al-Jaṣṣās, Makki bin Abi Talib, Abu Ja'far al-Nahhas, Ibn Jizziy, Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (which forms the majority) are simply wrong? You didn't even gave any proof for that. Anyway, I'm waiting for explanations concerning your biased behavior. --CounterTime (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Discuss per WP:BRD

@CounterTime, Welcome to wikipedia. I have reverted your edits because you need consensus to make the bold changes you made. Read and respect WP:BRD, as to how the consensus process works in wikipedia. Do not use sources that are very old, such as Arnold from 1913, etc. We prefer recent peer reviewed scholarship and similar reliable sources, read and respect WP:RS and WP:HISTRS. RLoutfy (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime, You also can not use wikipedia as cite for any POV, as you did here. Interpreting primary sources, and citing blogs or random websites with unknown peer review policies, is unacceptable as well. RLoutfy (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

As I stated above, we can reach a consensus concerning their meaning and interpretation. Plus there's nothing wrong with using Arnold's monumental treatise "The Preaching of Islam". Stop making false assertions, Thomas' book is widely acknowledged to be entirely reliable. Removing citations from it simply because "it is old" is a violation of WP policies. --CounterTime (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

And why didn't you address the issues I showed before?? --CounterTime (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

And you're making it as do I only cited primary sources, here are all the other non-primary sources:

Mustansir Mir (2008), Understanding the Islamic Scripture, p.54. Routledge. ISBN 978-0321355737. John Esposito (2011), What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam, p.91. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-979413-3. Sir Thomas Walker Arnold (1913), Preaching of Islam: A History of the Propagation of the Muslim Faith, p.6. Constable.Richard Curtis (2010), Reasonable Perspectives on Religion, p.204. Lexington Books. ISBN 978-0739141892. Muhammad S. Al-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law, US American Trust Publications, 1993, p.51. A.C. Brown, Jonathan (2014). Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet's Legacy. Oneworld Publications. p. 186. ISBN 978-1780744209. Yousif, Ahmad (2000-04-01). "Islam, Minorities and Religious Freedom: A Challenge to Modern Theory of Pluralism". Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs 20 (1): 35. doi:10.1080/13602000050008889. ISSN 1360-2004. Leonard J. Swidler (1986), Religious Liberty and Human Rights in Nations and in Religions, p.178. Ecumenical Press. Farhad Malekian, Principles of Islamic International Criminal Law, p.69. Brill. ISBN 978-9004203969. David Ray Griffin (2005), Deep Religious Pluralism, p.159. Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 978-0664229146.A.C. Brown, Jonathan (2014). "3. The Fragile Truth Of Scripture". Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet's Legacy. Oneworld Publications. p. 92. ISBN 978-1780744209. Sir Thomas Walker Arnold (1913), Preaching of Islam: A History of the Propagation of the Muslim Faith, p.420. Constable Abou El Fadl, Khaled (January 23, 2007). The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists. HarperOne. pp. 158–159. ISBN 978-0061189036. Sayyid Qutb, In the Shade of the Qur'an, vol. 1, pp.348-349. Aaron Spavack (2011). "Introduction", Ghazali on the Principles of Islamic Spirituality: Selections from The Forty Foundations of Religion, p.xxv. ISBN 9781594732843. Quote: "There is no compulsion in religion; thus, people are free to accept or reject Islam." Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, Fatwa on Terrorism and Suicide Bombings, p.159. London: Minhaj-ul-Quran, 2011. ISBN 978-0-9551888-9-3. Quote: "There is no room for coercion in Islam and no one can be forced to convert. Islam gives complete religious freedom to all non-Muslim citizens to adhere to their respective faith traditions and to freely practise their teachings." Majmaʻ al-Buḥūth al-Islāmīyah, The Fourth Conference of the Academy of Islamic Research, Rajab 1388, September 1968, p.192. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970.

So why did you revert all what I provided to a non consistent version? --CounterTime (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Also can you show how the highly acclaimed "The Preaching of Islam" of the orientalist Thomas Walker Arnold isn't reliable? --CounterTime (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Arnold is a 1913 cite, a very old source. A hundred years have passed and we must rely on recent reliable sources. See WP:HISTRS and WP:RS. Let me invite an admin and get input on the reliability of such old sources. @NeilN: what is the current policy on old sources? CounterTime, also please don't revert war. You must respect WP:BRD guidelines, which you must read given you are new to wikipedia. The other cites you mention above, along with "there is no compulsion" is already summarized in this article. What is it that in these, that is not already in the article? RLoutfy (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Arnold, despite being an old source, IS considered reliable by many orientalists. "The other cites you mention above, along with "there is no compulsion" is already summarized in this article. What is it that in these, that is not already in the article?" It isn't, it doesn't mention the Shi'i point of view (please read WP:NPOV), how the verse was understood over the centuries, the circumstances of the revelation, how the tension between the context of the verse and the generality of the language is, whether the verse was considered to be abrogated or not...etc I already pointed out that your ""summary"" contained many holes in the talk page earlier, PLEASE read what I stated there. --CounterTime (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

If Arnold views on Al-Baqara 256 is discussed by recent scholars, then you should cite those recent scholars. Arnold is not acceptable because it is not WP:HISTRS and WP:RS. This topic is well discussed in recent scholarship and let us rely on it. Which recent scholarly cites in your list above, reflects Shi'i, and is not already discussed in this article? RLoutfy (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

"If Arnold views on Al-Baqara 256 is discussed by recent scholars, then you should cite those recent scholars." I cited many scholars on that including Esposito, Mapel, Nardin, Taha Jabir Alalwani, Richard Curtis, Jonathan A.C. ...etc who ALL confirm the thesis that the verse is Medinan, confirming the other citations of classical scholars such as Ibn Kathir, Ibn Qayyim, Tabari, Abi 'Ubayd, Al-Jaṣṣās, Makki bin Abi Talib, Al-Nahhas, Ibn Jizziy, Al-Suyuti, Ibn Ashur, ...etc as well as the narration in Sunan Abu Dawud. And the only thing that you have to say is "Arnold ...old"?

And BTW stop talking about Wikipedia's guidelines on history, when "abrogation" is part of Usul al-Tafsir, and al-Tafsir.

""Which recent scholarly cites in your list above, reflects Shi'i, and is not already discussed in this article? [["" there were no Shi'i interpretation (meaning, an exegesis coming from a Shi'ite muslim) in the old version which you keep popping up. --CounterTime (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The "verse is Medinan" part was already in the article you reverted. See this. The stable version, pre-BRD version, is before your first edit here. I ask that you voluntarily self-revert. RLoutfy (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

But you stated in that version of the article that it was abrogated, QUOTE: " This verse was Medinan but an early revelation,[4] and historical literature of Islam has considered this verse to be abrogated by later verses revealed to Muhammad which recommend compulsion" Esposito, Mapel, Nardin, Taha Jabir Alalwani, Richard Curtis, Jonathan A.C. ...etc who ALL confirm the thesis that the verse is Medinan and non abrogated, confirming the other citations of classical scholars such as Ibn Qayyim, Tabari, Abi 'Ubayd, Al-Jaṣṣās, Makki bin Abi Talib, Al-Nahhas, Ibn Jizziy, Al-Suyuti, Ibn Ashur, ... Why self revert all the cites I added and improvements including the Shi'i point of view (please read WP:NPOV), how the verse was understood over the centuries, the circumstances of the revelation, how the tension between the context of the verse and the generality of the language is, how they were reconciled with verses on qital, ......etc?--CounterTime (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Click and read again. It presented both sides - it is abrogated, and it is not abrogated. It read, "However, various historical and current Muslim scholars state that this verse should not be considered as abrogated.[8]". You should self-revert and respect WP:BRD. RLoutfy (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That was only superficial and the emphasis was on "This verse was Medinan but an early revelation and historical literature of Islam has considered this verse to be abrogated by later verses revealed to Muhammad which recommend compulsion". Whereas my improvement included a reference to every Muslim scholar who considered it to be non abrogated, as well as to old and contemporary sources such as John Esposito, Mapel, Nardin, Taha Jabir Alalwani, Richard Curtis, Jonathan A.C. ...etc Furthermore my improvements include

• A modern Islamic theorist's -- namely Sayyid Qutb -- interpretation.
• Your modification included the claim that "There is no consensus interpretation for this Quranic verse..." when the cites I've added show that not only a majority thought of it as being non abrogated, and to mean that people can't be forced to accept Islam, but that "The verse has been understood over the centuries as a general command that people cannot be forced to convert to Islam." (see the 4 references I gave : [21][25][30][59])
• Your modification violated WP:OR, where you interpreted Ibn Kathir's exegesis according to your whims, stating "...implies that Islam should not force anyone to become a Muslim, but considering it in context of verses 253 through 286 in Al-Baqara, "a non-Muslim even though he dislikes embracing Islam, he should still embrace it,", when mine included a reference to a scholar - Yusuf al-Qaradawi - who explained that what Ibn Kathir meant was that people shouldn't force non-Muslims to convert.
• Your modification doesn't include any --whatsoever-- citations from a known jurist, mine cites for instance Ibn Qudamah.
• Your modification deleted the references I gave to how traditionally 9:5 and 9:29 were conceived off, and as a surprise that's the same thing you did in the Jizya article, by removing my reference of M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, who quoted al-Baydawi and Abu Hayyan.
• Your modification contained erroneous mis-attributions (!!!) to scholars for claiming that 2:256 was abrogated, you state amongst them: "Hibat Allāh, al-Nahhās, Ibn al Jawzī, Mustafā Zayd, Makki bin Abi Talib, Ibn Kathir, ..." However a quick look at "Abu Ja'far al-Nahhas, al-Nasikh wa al-Mansukh fi al-Quran al-Karim, p.259.", " Makki bin Abi Talib, al-Idah li Nasikh al-Qur'an wa Mansukhih, p. 194.", "Al-Jaṣṣās, Aḥkām al-Qur'ān 2, p.168.", Mustafa Zayd's writings on abrogation, as well as the tafsir of Ibn Kathir shows that those are false mis-attributions. Unfortunately I can't access for now the writings of Hibat Allah, Al-Arabi, Ibn Hazm, Al-Balkhi, but that strikes hugely on the reliability of the citations you gave.
• No reference to a Shi'i source whatsoever, please read WP:NPOV!
• Your modification doesn't cite verses related to 2:256, and I added many with references. Ironically, you also deleted verses related to 2:256 in the 'apostasy in...' article... Each time you display the same bias!
• Using biased sources, such as the well known Islamophobe 'Robert Spencer' e.g. "Robert Spencer (2005), The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims, Prometheus, ISBN 978-1591022497, pp. 167-189", all attest to your intentions.
• You violated WP:PRIMARY on many occasions (so please, go read it), such as when you offered your own interpretation of Q.9:66, when you state: "if we pardon some of you (for apostasy), we will punish others amongst you, for that they are in sin", however no common translation include that (source: A look at Shakir, Pickthall, Arberry, ... respective translations, and no verse in the Qur'an speaks about a defined worldly punishment for apostasy, see The Encylopedia of the Qur'an Brill, the entry on apostasy by Wael B. Hallaq)
• You state that Arnold is old (1913) and unreliable, when in fact you yourself cited in your article a translation of an old work by the german orientalist Theodor Nöldeke, namely Geschichte des Qorâns (1860), which is way older than Arnold. I can't accept this double bias, and selective scholarship.
• The list goes on and on, and the conclusion will be the same, at least to anyone who doesn't display bias and intellectual dishonesty.

So please stop this edit war. --CounterTime (talk) 11:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

A couple comments, applicable to all articles:

• WP:HISTRS is an essay, not policy or guideline
• Older sources can be used unless superseded by modern scholarship. For example, archaeology papers prior to the 1940s dealing with the age of objects should not be used as they've been superseded by studies using radiocarbon dating techniques. Papers dealing with the social sciences should be scrutinized for using outdated assumptions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)