Introduction

The issue of religious tolerance in Islam is a matter of controversy. The debate is often polarized between two camps who do not hesitate to draw from the Quran verses supposedly demonstrating the superiority of their arguments. The verse "there is no compulsion in religion" regularly makes its way into the debate table. In a famous passage, the Quran indeed proclaims: There is no compulsion in religion. The right path is distinct from error. Whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. Allah is the Hearing, the Knowing (2:256). This verse is regularly highlighted to support the idea that the Quran encourages tolerance and religious pluralism. As commendable as it is, this interpretation runs into two difficulties. On one hand, the meaning of the verse is not as clear as it seems, and we will see that it is not about tolerance here. On the other hand, the quotations of the verse are very often disconnected from the exegesis discussions of Muslim commentators. Yet, these commentators have interpreted this verse in a way that does not align with the liberal reading made of it today. In 2006, Pope Benedict XVI (d. 2022) caused an uproar in the Muslim world. In his Ratisbonne speech, the pontiff addressed the issue of religious violence. On this occasion, he cited verse 2:256 of the Quran, specifying that according to some scholars, it "dates back to a time when Muhammad himself was still deprived of power and threatened," before adding that the Prophet later adopted much firmer positions against the disbelievers. These remarks naturally provoked indignation among some Muslims. However, the Pope was only recounting the classical theory, stated by Islamic scholars themselves, that Muhammad's initial preaching was peaceful before taking militant turns once his power was consolidated. In this article, we will therefore examine the interpretation of verse 2:256 in classical Islam.

The historian's viewpoint

Before turning to Muslim interpretations, let's take a closer look at the meaning of the verse. According to the most widespread opinion, it concerns the treatment of unbelievers. However, careful reading of the verse shows that such an interpretation is far from obvious. In fact, it has little to do with religion and even less with religious tolerance. The term dīn, often mistranslated as "religion" by misusage, means nothing more than "worship" or "adoration." As Mohsen Gourdazi emphasizes, the verse means that there "is nothing oppressive in the worship that God prescribed for His followers." The verse therefore does not specifically encourage acceptance of other religions but simply states that worshiping Allah involves no compulsion. The Quran restates here an argument of Christian theologians from antiquity, which holds that the worship of the true God, unlike idol worship, does not require coercion or violence because its truth is sufficiently apparent. We read such a statement, with a formulation that closely resembles that of the Quran, from the pen of the Berber-origin writer Lactantius (d. 325), who writes in his *Institutions Divinae*: "Where is the truth? Where no coercion can weigh on religion, where nothing can be subjected to violence..." (II, IV, 7). He further adds: There is no need for violence and injustice to persuade, because religion cannot be born of coercion. Instead, it must be voluntary, using words rather than whips, so that the act is voluntary. That is why no one is ever held against their will by us, and yet no one departs, because only the truth retains within our ranks (V, XIX, 11-13). About a century before, Tertullian (d. 240) wrote something similar in his letter *Ad Scapulam*: It is contrary to religion to coerce into religion, which must be embraced voluntarily and not by force, since every sacrifice requires the consent of the heart. Verse 2:256 clearly reproduces the same argument — indicating, in passing, that its author was familiar with Christian theological writings.

The interpretation by Muslim commentators

On the Muslim commentators' side, this passage has been subject to various interpretations, often difficult to reconcile. Traditional sources indicate that the verse was revealed in response to a specific situation, although there is still disagreement as to the episode concerned. Some mention the expulsion of the Jewish tribe Banu Nadhir by Muhammad. Some members of the tribe had converted to Judaism by their polytheist parents (apparently to ensure their survival). But in the meantime, the parents had converted to Islam and wanted to force their children to do the same. The verse 2:256 would then have been "sent down" to give the Jewish children the choice to become Muslims and stay in Medina or to preserve their religion and be expelled. Other sources mention the case of two Medinan converts to Christianity by merchants from Syria. The two sons had left Medina, and their fathers had gone to see the Prophet to ask if they could retrieve their sons. It was then that verse 2:256 was revealed. The issue of the scope of verse 2:256 has been hotly debated by Muslim commentators, who wondered whether its application was universal or specific to one or more groups. No consensus emerges in Islamic literature, but the majority of scholars lean toward the latter option. Jurists (fuqaha) classify non-Muslims into two categories: the People of the Book and the polytheists. The former have the possibility to retain their religion while being relegated to the status of "dhimmis." This status grants them certain rights such as practicing their faith in exchange for paying the jizya, a tax they must pay with humiliation (9:29), often accompanied by discriminatory measures. The latter, however, have no choice but to accept Islam or face death. For most Muslim exegetes, verse 2:256 concerns only the People of the Book. This is notably the opinion of the Persian scholar al-Tabari (d. 923), who states in his monumental exegesis of the Quran that this verse "was revealed for certain individuals in particular: the People of the Book, the Mandaeans, and all who profess a religion different from the true religion, from whom we collect the jizya." For others, it is permissible to compel them to embrace Islam and to kill them if they refuse. In this view, "there is no compulsion in religion" means that it is not necessary to force the People of the Book to convert if they accept paying a special tax and submitting to discriminatory laws — a conception of tolerance that is quite peculiar. Some jurists have interpreted the verse even more restrictively, such as Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi (d. 998), who affirmed that "the application of the verse is limited to the Jews for whom it was revealed. As for forcing disbelievers to submit to the religion of truth, that is obligatory, and that is why we fight them until they convert or pay the jizya, accepting to be dominated by the religion." Some commentators believe that the verse initially applied to everyone but was later abrogated. The principle of abrogation holds that the most recent revealed verses replace older ones. According to traditional sources, verse 2:256 dates from the late Meccan period or early Medinan period. It would have been abrogated by later revealed verses that prescribe a more militant attitude toward non-Muslims. Verse 9:5 ("Kill them wherever you find them") is often cited as an example by exponents and is believed to have alone led to the abrogation of about a hundred verses. Ultimately, there are two main opinions among Muslim commentators: either the verse has a universal scope and is therefore abrogated, or it refers to specific groups.

Appendix: Al-Tabari's exegesis

We provide the reader with the full commentary of al-Tabari concerning verse 2:256 from his book *Jami' al-Bayan 'an Ta-wil al-Quran*.

Commentary:

Younous reported to me: Ibn Wahb reported to us that Ibn Zayd said about His words "there is no compulsion in religion" up to "the most trustworthy handhold": it is abrogated.

Sofyan reported to me via Sa'id ibn ar-Rabi' ar-Razi: from Ibn Abi Najih, from Mujahid and Wail, that al-Hassan said: some of the Ansar were breastfed at Banu Nadir. When they were displaced, they wanted their peers to join their religion. The verse "there is no compulsion in religion" was revealed.

Others said: the meaning here is: the People of the Book are not coerced to embrace Islam if they pay the jizya, and thus can profess their religion. They said: the verse concerns certain disbelievers in particular, and nothing has been abrogated. Those who said this:

Bishr ibn Mua'dh reported to us: Yazid reported to us: Sa'id reported to us that Qatadah said: "There is no compulsion in religion! For the true path has distinguished itself from deviation": Arab tribes were forced to convert to Islam because they were pagan communities who knew no holy book, and only Islam was accepted from them. The People of the Book were not forced to convert if they paid the jizya or the kharaj, and they were left undisturbed.

Muhammad ibn Bishr reported to us: Soulayman reported to us: Abu Hilal reported to us: Qatadah reported to us regarding His words "there is no compulsion in religion": it was about Arab tribes forced to convert to Islam, and they only had the choice between Islam and death. And the People of the Book who accepted to pay the jizya were not killed.

Ibn Homayd reported to us: al-Hakam ibn Bakhir reported to us: ‘Amr ibn Qays reported to us from Juwaybir that at-Dahhak said about His words "there is no compulsion in religion": the Messenger of Allah ordered fighting the pagan Arabs in the Arabian Peninsula. They only had the choice between "there is no god but Allah" and the sword. Then, he ordered regarding others to collect the jizya, saying: "there is no compulsion in religion! For the true path has distinguished itself from deviation."

Al-Hassan ibn Yahya reported to us: ‘Abd ar-Razzaq reported to us: Ma'mar reported to us that Qatadah said regarding His words "there is no compulsion in religion": non-Muslim Arabs were forced to convert to Islam by the sword. He added: Jews, Nazarenes, and Mandaeans were not forced to convert if they paid the jizya.

Al-Hassan ibn Yahya reported to us: ‘Abd ar-Razzaq reported to us: Ibn ‘Ouyayna, reported to us that he heard Mujahid say to a Christian boy: "O Jareer! Embrace Islam!" That was how he talked to them.

Muhammad ibn Sa'd reported to us: my father reported to me: my uncle reported to me: my father reported to me from his father that Ibn ‘Abbas said: "There is no compulsion in religion! For the true path has distinguished itself from deviation": it was when the people entered Islam and the People of the Book paid the jizya.

Others said: this verse has been abrogated since it was revealed before the imposition of fighting. Those who said this:

Younous ibn ‘Abd al-‘A’la reported to us: Ibn Wahb reported to us: Ya’qub ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahman az-Zuhri reported to us: I heard Zayd ibn Aslam say regarding the word of Allah "there is no compulsion in religion": the Messenger of Allah stayed in Mecca for ten years and did not force anyone to embrace Islam. The disbelievers never refused to fight him. He therefore asked Allah for permission to fight them, and it was granted to him.

The first opinion is the most accurate, meaning that the verse "there is no compulsion in religion" was revealed for certain individuals in particular: the People of the Book, the Mandaeans, and all who profess a religion different from the true religion, from whom the jizya is collected. They denied that this verse was abrogated. We say that the first opinion is the most correct on this matter, as we have shown in our book *Kitab al-Latif min al-Bayan ‘an Ousoul al-Ahkâm*, where the abrogator is only one that contradicts the judgment of the abrogated, and both cannot be reconciled. Its apparent meaning is general but its deep meaning is particular. The opinion that it is among the abrogants and abrogated is a lone opinion, and if that were true, it would not be permissible to say: whoever pays the jizya is not coerced to convert to Islam. Therefore, there is no proof in the verse that it must be interpreted differently. All Muslims report that the Prophet coerced some people to convert to Islam and only accepted their conversion to Islam, deciding to kill them if they refused. This was the case with pagan Arabs, apostates who deviated from the religion of truth toward disbelief, and similar cases. But he abandoned forced conversion to Islam for others if they accepted paying the jizya and followed their false religion. This was the case for the People of the Book and similar instances. This is the meaning of His words "there is no compulsion in religion": there is no need to force someone to convert to Islam if it is lawful to accept their jizya and they pay it willingly. And the opinion of those who claim that the verse is abrogated by the permission to wage war makes no sense. If someone asks: What do you think of the reports from Ibn ‘Abbas and others: that the verse was revealed concerning people among the Helpers who wanted to coerce their children into embracing Islam? We say: this does not cast doubt on the truth of their statements; the verse descended concerning a particular case, and later its judgment was generalized to all similar cases.