Talk:Al-Baqara 256

Untitled

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)

Dear @Dbachmann:. Your comments on the original meaning of the verse have been covered with related scholarly work in the Context section, the verse Q.2:256 was a Qur'anic command revealed in Medina when a child from one of the Muslim families who had been educated in the town's Jewish schools decided to depart with the Jewish tribe being expelled from Medina. His distraught parents were told by God and the Prophet in this verse that they could not compel their son to stay according to many reports. But as the famous maxim says "العبرة بعموم اللفظ لا بخصوص السبب" (Consideration is granted to the Generality of the Language, not to the Specificity of the Reason for Revelation), and hence it is concluded that the verse is general in meaning. --CounterTime (talk) 17:55, 11 November 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)

@NeilN Thanks a lot for clarifying that! --CounterTime (talk) 12:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN. Please note the "superseded" part, CounterTime. RLoutfy (talk) 09:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy First of all you didn't respond to my claims above. Second you didn't respond to my claims here and here. Third of all the claims of Arnold aren't superseded by modern scholarship, see my references to J. AC Brown., Esposito, Mapel, Nardin, Taha Jabir Alalwani, Richard Curtis, ...ETC --CounterTime (talk) 09:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: I'm still waiting for you to respond to all the objections raised above. 12:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Misquotes per user @RLoutfy

I ask the user @RLoutfy to show where in Fatoohi, Louay (2013). Abrogation in the Qurʼan and Islamic law : a critical study of the concept of. New York: Routledge. pp. 114–115, 120. ISBN 978-0-415-63198-3, and in Ellethy, Yaser (2015). Islam, context, pluralism and democracy : classical and modern interpretations. New York: Routledge. pp. 117–119. ISBN 978-1-138-80030-4, that show that (just according to your previous edit) that "2:256 was abrogated was supported by Hibat Allāh, al-Nahhās, Ibn al Jawzī, Mustafā Zayd, Makki bin Abi Talib, Ibn Kathir, Al-Arabi, Ibn Hazm, Al-Balkhi"? In fact, we find no instance of the "no compulsion ..." verse or 2:256 according to this search in the former, while the latter doesn't speak about the no compulsion verse in the pages pp.117-119. I'm waiting for your explanations.

Also you state for instance (this is just a simple example) that Mustafa Zayd claimed that 9:5 abrogated "numerous tolerance verses", what we find however is that (quote:) "Mustapha Zayd, in his modern detailed study on the question of naskh in the Qur'an, ... concludes that it [Q.9:5] concerns a "group" among the Pagans and that it does not imply their compulsion to accept Islam". (Yaser (2015), p.120) Where does it state that Mustafa considered that "numerous tolerance verses" were abrogated by Q.9:5? A look at "primary sources" such as the writings of al-Nahaas, etc reveal that they didn't consider Q.2:256 to be abrogated, see the previous discussion.

With all these clear-cut instances of fabricating lies, I'll contact a mod. --CounterTime (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime: Are you looking at the cited pages in the actual book, or just relying a search box results of the Google view? RLoutfy (talk) 09:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: I'm looking at both, and both of them show that you fabricated lies, for instance claiming that Mustafa Zayd considered that 9:5 abrogated "numerous tolerance verses" when the actual source stated the exact opposite. I'm waiting for explanations. Don't try to escape the facts. --CounterTime (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime: No personal attacks. Are you honestly looking at pp. 114-115 and 120 of Louay Fatoohi (2013) book and the three cites? and you are honestly alleging that you don't see the support and those names there? Look, if you are relying on google search of a limited preview book - know that google book search limits the search results to pages available for preview, and it does not show all pages. I know you are a newly registered wikipedia editor, and your personal attacks and disruptive attitude are WP:NOTHERE for this article and others. RLoutfy (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: I made no personal attack. Here's the full quote from Yaser (2015) (and not Louay) page 120: "Mustapha Zayd, in his modern detailed study on the question of naskh in the Quran, ... He concludes that it [Q.9:5] concerns a 'group' among the Pagans and that it does not imply their compulsion to accept Islam." Where does he states that Mustafa Zayd considered that 9:5 abrogated "numerous tolerance verses"? And this is only one example of your misquotes with those two sources. And I'm not making any personal attacks, so please stop bringing that up. --CounterTime (talk) 10:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime: Accusing another person of "fabricating lies, misquoting", as did here, is a personal attack. And, you keep evading a direct question. Have you actually looked at pp. 114-115 and 120 of Louay Fatoohi and the pages cited of the other three cites, and you honestly can affirm that you don't see the support? Or did you only look at google preview window and then made your uncivil accusations? RLoutfy (talk) 10:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: You may consider it a personal attack, but the facts speak for themselves: you distorted information in both cites. And yes, both pages don't show anything supporting "Mustafa Zayd considered that 9:5 abrogated "numerous tolerance verses"". You're the one who is constantly evading facts, I repeat: Here's the full quote from Yaser (2015) (and not Louay) page 120: "Mustapha Zayd, in his modern detailed study on the question of naskh in the Quran, ... He concludes that it [Q.9:5] concerns a 'group' among the Pagans and that it does not imply their compulsion to accept Islam." Where does he states that Mustafa Zayd considered that 9:5 abrogated "numerous tolerance verses"? I'm waiting for explanations. --CounterTime (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Did you also look at this "clear-cut" case of distorting citations, here? --CounterTime (talk) 10:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime: Allow me to research and address one issue at a time. Let us deal with the above case before we move to your second absurd "clear-cut" case.

Did you check Reuven Firestone's 1999 book published by Oxford University Press, p. 151, note 21? Mustafa Zayd in my edit here is supported in that cite. It is in the 6th line in that note. Oxford University Press publications are WP:RS in wikipedia. Please check, and then withdraw your uncivil accusation above about Mustafa Zayd? RLoutfy (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: I checked, here's the exact passage: "Sura 9:5 is of such importance that it is considered by early exegetes to have abrogated 114 or 124 verses treating war that were revealed before it (Ibn al-Jawz† [d. 1200], Nawasikh al-Qur an [Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al- Ilmiyya,n.d.], p. 179 [henceforth, Ibn al-Jawz†]), and one modern scholar counts up to 140 verses (Mustafa Zayd, Al-Naskh f†l-Qur an al-Kar†m [Cairo?: Dar al-Fikr al- Arab†, 1383/1963], vol. 2, pp. 507–508. Nahhas considers 9:29 to have abrogated virtually all verses calling for patience or forgiveness toward Scriptuaries (e.g., vol. 1, p. 514; vol. 2, pp. 273, 355, 576, 614; vol. 3, p. 320)." Here it only says that some exegetes considered 140 verses to have been abrogated by 9:5 (which is clear if you read Mustafa Zayd, Al-Nasikh fi al-Qur'an al-Karim, vol2. pp.507-508), nowhere does it state that Mustafa Zayd himself considered 9:5 to have abrogated that number of verses (in the edit you state "was supported by Hibat Allāh, al-Nahhās, Ibn al Jawzī, Mustafā Zayd,..."), in fact according to him no verse was abrogated by 9:5. This only supports my points, in that you manipulated sources. And now I want more explanations for that. --CounterTime (talk) 11:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Furthermore you stated in the edit "Some Muslim scholars have disagreed with this majority view" This is a clear case of POV pushing, where I added so many references that proved and showed that it wasn't the majority view. --CounterTime (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: And also since you mentioned that edit of yours, I'll reiterate the points I made on how 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.

--CounterTime (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime: Oh, common on. The passage is saying "one modern scholar counts up to 140 verses abrogated" and then refers to Mustafa Zayd. Once again, I ask, have you read "pp. 115-116 and 120" of Fatoohi book? Yes, I am aware of Zayd's views. I remember, adding for NPOV, those alternate views from Al-Nahhas, Zayd and others, as well. Let us address one uncivil allegation of yours at a time. As the editor Iryna Harpy noted, it is you CounterTime who is pushing POV in various Islam-related articles, and we can return to POV issues in due course. Right now, I want to consider the merit just those accusations that are directly relevant to Apostasy in Islam article. RLoutfy (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: First, no, the passage states that Mustafa Zayd counted X instance of abrogation from some exegetesis, this is clear if you actually read (Mustafa Zayd, Al-Nasikh fi al-Qur'an al-Karim, vol2. pp.507-508), and again "pp. 115-116 and 120" of Fatoohi book don't contain anything that states that Mustafa Zayd considered 140 verses to have been abrogated by Q.9:5. You distorted facts, I need explanations for that. Second, you keep referring to Iryna Harpy when she actually stated to me: "My apologies, but I'm currently involved in other article disputes to the point of not knowing how to prioritise my time. More to the point, I am not in a position to engage in extensive reading in order to familiarise myself with the details of the subject matter in order to be able to give a reasonably qualified NPOV opinion. " --CounterTime (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: You also state "adding for NPOV, those alternate views from Al-Nahhas, Zayd and others", yes and then removing the views of Ibn Qayyim, Al-Tabari, Abi 'Ubayd, Al-Jaṣṣās, Makki bin Abi Talib,[15] Al-Nahhas,[16] Ibn Jizziy,[17] Al-Suyuti,[18] Ibn Ashur, for NPOV. You call that following the NPOV policy??! --CounterTime (talk) 12:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

CounterTime, Once again, please provide diffs of history. You are making uncivil allegations. For example, you claim I added Arnold here. That is not a diff. If you look at the diff just before that version, you will note I didn't. You are throwing too many defensive statements, and the way to make progress is to take one cite or section at a time. Our goal should not be to prove whether and who is wrong. Our goal needs to shift to discussing the cites and summary, one section at a time, with the objective of improving the articles you have been edit warring on, with editors such as Iryna Harpy and I. RLoutfy (talk) 12:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Where did I claim that you added Arnold? In fact, here's what I stated: Quote. "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." End Quote. Well I'm not in the defensive, we're not in a war. I'm just objecting to the edits you made, and which had many issues that I outlined here. For example, the misquotes you made claiming that Mustafa Zayd considered 140 verses to have been abrogated by Q.2:256. (which is only an example, and which you didn't yet answer) So I'm still waiting for you to cooperate and explain the edits you made. --CounterTime (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Give me diffs, not versions of articles with your uncivil accusations. I already pointed you to the cite and page numbers on Zayd. No one can help you if you refuse to read those pages. Your edits have problems. Some of the cites you added are not compliant with WP:RS. Wikipedia does not rely on doubtful sources with unclear editorial oversight. You added WP:QUESTIONABLE sources such as *.net websites etc, instead of WP:RS ones. With old cites, we should replace or add a second recent scholarship cite, no matter who placed them there. I invite you to focus on Apostasy in Islam article for now, and we will come back to this article in due course. RLoutfy (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: "Give me diffs, not versions of articles with your uncivil accusations." I gave you links to the edit you made which shows the differences, and not versions of "articles with [my] uncivil accusations", okay? "I already pointed you to the cite and page numbers on Zayd." I already explained to you that "it only says that some exegetes considered 140 verses to have been abrogated by 9:5 (which is clear if you read Mustafa Zayd, Al-Nasikh fi al-Qur'an al-Karim, vol2. pp.507-508), nowhere does it state that Mustafa Zayd himself considered 9:5 to have abrogated that number of verses (in the edit you state "was supported by Hibat Allāh, al-Nahhās, Ibn al Jawzī, Mustafā Zayd,..."), in fact according to him no verse was abrogated by 9:5. This only supports my points, in that you manipulated sources. And now I want more explanations for that." "No one can help you if you refuse to read those pages." No one can help if you refuse to read and respond to my objections. (I already read what was given in Fatoohy's book) "Some of the cites you added are not compliant with WP:RS." Which of my cites aren't conform with WP:RS "You added WP:QUESTIONABLE sources such as *.net websites etc, instead of WP:RS ones." I only added one website as a reference and it is, http://www.momin.com/urdu/Books/Mahdi+In+The+Qur039an-23/SHI039ITE+COMMENTATORS+MUFASSIRIN+AND+THEIR+COMMENTARIES+TAFSIRS-85.html, to show that Kashani was a Shi'i, if you think that's objectionable then please delete that reference and search for another one which states that he was a Shi'i. Thanks. I invite you to focus on this article, since part of the dispute on the Apostasy article stems from this article. I invite you also to respond to my objections. --CounterTime (talk) 12:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: I've even added a direct quote from Dr. Mustafa Zayd's book where he states that the allegation that Q.2:256 was abrogated doesn't stand.

12:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Second case of Misquotes per user @RLoutfy

The user @RLoutfy quoted this reference: Israr Ahmad Khan (2012), Arguments for Abrogation in the Qur’an: A Critical Evaluation, Islamic Perspective - Journal of the Islamic Studies and Humanities, Vol. 8, pages 1-20 to support his allegation that "... that verse [Q.2:256] is considered as an early revelation, and abrogated by verses that were revealed to Muhammad at a later stage in his life." I ask user @RLoutfy where in that reference does Israr Ahmad Khan claim that Q.2:256 was abrogated or where he even talks about it? This is another case of misquotes, we are waiting explanations. --CounterTime (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: For completeness here's the complete passage "...that verse [Q.2:256] is considered as an early revelation, though a Medinan one,[4][19] and abrogated by verses that were revealed to Muhammad at a later stage in his life" and then you cite the reference above, see this edit of yours. --CounterTime (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Al-Baqara 256. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090212133714/http://ammanmessage.com/media/openLetter/english.pdf to http://ammanmessage.com/media/openLetter/english.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.abebooks.co.uk/Tafsir-Ibn-Kathir-Part-Surah-Al-Baqaray/1121812804/bd
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090212133714/http://ammanmessage.com/media/openLetter/english.pdf to http://ammanmessage.com/media/openLetter/english.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The next verse - Al-Baquara 257

The next verse immediately after 2:256 is instructive: it says the Taghut (disbelievers) will abide eternally in the fire (presumably in the hereafter) - a threat with a strong element of compulsion. I would appeal to scholars to address the apparent contradiction in 2:256 and 2:257.

2:257 is as follows: SAHIH INTERNATIONAL Allah is the ally of those who believe. He brings them out from darknesses into the light. And those who disbelieve - their allies are Taghut. They take them out of the light into darknesses. Those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide eternally therein. Rhannah99 (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Article section : 'Verses relating to Quran 2:256'

The section as it stands is 'original research' and the verses provided, do not "confirm that compulsion is strictly prohibited". Improve or remove. Koreangauteng (talk) 07:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Overall that is the accepted view, therefore not original research. However, the, probably minority, opinion excluding polytheists should likely be represented, although it might be a little unrelated to Q2:256.

The other question here is that of coercion. Jihad means you go out and conquer people. But does it mean you’re actually going to force them to convert to Islam? The basic answer is no. This is straightforward in the case of Jews and Christians, ... They still have to follow certain stipulations, and you could argue about the small print, but the basic conception is very clear.

There is also a strong stream of Islamic law that says that you can give the same protected status to any unbeliever with the single exception of Arab pagans. Arab pagans are not a big deal because they don’t exist after, say, the middle of the seventh century. So when you go and conquer India, you can give the Hindus protected status. There are other schools of Islamic law that say, no; you shouldn’t give the Hindus protected status because their idolatry is so way out you can’t tolerate it. But the Muslims who actually conquered large parts of India adhered to the school that said no problem tolerating Hindus.

— Michael Cook, How and Why Muhammad Made a Difference

-- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 08:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019 edits

Comments regarding AshleighHanley82's edits:

• Special:Diff/929506079 - Agree with the removal.
• Special:Diff/929525482 - Agree with the lede reversion.

Comments regarding Koreangauteng's edits:

• Special:Diff/928575563, Special:Diff/928982010, Special:Diff/929632563 - The rule was generally applied, though maybe it should be included with more nuance, ensuring balance and accuracy.
• Special:Diff/928986217, Special:Diff/928578495, Special:Diff/929426738 Verses 256 and 257 alleged contradiction - Pathos, theexmuslim and American Thinker articles appear to be heavily biased, therefore, arguably unreliable at least in the unqualified way they were used here. Regarding the theology here, the punishment of fire for those who don't believe is related to the after-life, and has nothing to do with this world.
• Special:Diff/929138940 - Qur'an 3:56 refers to punishment from God, and not by any human Muslims.
• Special:Diff/929145627 - Original research.
• Special:Diff/929147113 - With this edit, the lede became extremely POV.
• Special:Diff/929148066 - Leaving the lede bare like this, doesn't appear desirable.
• Special:Diff/929202718 - No strong opinions on the removal.
• Special:Diff/929630830 - No strong opinions on the separation into section #Medinan surah, but the previous more extensive abridgement of the lede didn't look all right.

-- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 08:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Read what it says

There is no compulsion IN religion. Not there is no compulsion OF religion. This verse means that for muslims, in islam, there is no compulsion, that they believe what they believe. Not that you cannot force islam on others, which is how islam spread, from Muhammad onwards. (185.239.56.135 (talk) 04:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC))

But isn't this verse a response to a mother who is worried that her son is leaving with a group of Jews and leaving Islam. She asks Mohammed if they should stop them. But he says to let them go. 2601:86:1:9E30:21A:A332:8C5B:EED9 (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement of opinion

"Islam also provided non-Muslims with considerable economic, cultural, and administrative rights." This is clearly a statement of opinion, and I suggest replacing it with a neutral alternative or removing it altogether. Boundary.operator (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)