The Verses Muslims Love to Quote
When defending Islam against charges of violence, Muslims almost invariably cite two verses:
"There shall be no compulsion in religion." — Quran 2:256
"Whoever kills a person... it is as if he has killed all mankind. And whoever saves one, it is as if he has saved all mankind." — Quran 5:32
These verses sound beautiful. They seem to prove Islam is peaceful and tolerant. There's just one problem: according to classical Islamic scholarship, the first verse was abrogated (cancelled) by later verses, and the second is quoted deceptively, removing the context that completely changes its meaning.
Muslims quoting these verses either don't know what their own scholars taught about them, or they're deliberately being deceptive. Either way, these verses don't prove what apologists claim they prove.
"No Compulsion in Religion" - Abrogated
Quran 2:256 seems clear: "There shall be no compulsion in [accepting] religion. The right course has become distinct from the wrong."
If this verse is valid and universally applicable, Islam is indeed tolerant. But is it?
Tafsir Ibn Kathir on 2:256:
Ibn Kathir, writing one of Islam's most respected Quranic commentaries, addresses this verse directly. He explains two views among scholars:
View 1: Abrogated by the Sword Verse
"Others said that it [2:256] was revealed and later abrogated by the Sword Verse [9:5]... This is the opinion of Ibn Abbas, who said that it is abrogated by: 'O Prophet! Strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites' (Quran 9:73)."
According to Ibn Abbas (Muhammad's cousin and a leading early authority on the Quran), "no compulsion in religion" was cancelled by later verses commanding warfare against disbelievers.
View 2: Limited Application
Other scholars argued the verse was never universal—it only applied to Jews and Christians who could be given the option to pay jizya (submission tax) rather than convert. Polytheists had no such option; they must convert or die. Even under this interpretation, the verse doesn't establish broad religious tolerance—it establishes a tiered system where non-Muslims can buy survival through humiliation (Quran 9:29 says they must pay "while they are humbled").
Either way—whether abrogated or limited in scope—"no compulsion in religion" doesn't establish the universal tolerance Muslims claim.
Historical Application: Compulsion Was the Norm
How did Muslims historically apply this verse? By completely ignoring it in practice:
Apostasy Laws: All four schools of Islamic law mandate death for apostates (Muslims who leave Islam). This is explicit compulsion. If "no compulsion in religion" was a binding principle, apostasy laws couldn't exist.
The hadith is explicit:
"Whoever changes his religion, kill him." — Sahih Bukhari 3017
Muhammad himself commanded killing those who leave Islam. This directly contradicts "no compulsion in religion."
Forced Conversion in Practice: Throughout Islamic history, conquered peoples faced three choices: convert, pay jizya (if they were "People of the Book"—Jews/Christians), or die. Polytheists and pagans got only two choices: convert or die. This is systematic compulsion.
When Muslim armies conquered Persia, Central Asia, North Africa, and India, millions were given these ultimatums. Those who refused conversion and couldn't pay jizya were killed. This was understood as implementing Quranic commands like 9:5 and 9:29, not violating 2:256.
Modern Apostasy Prosecutions: In countries applying sharia (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, etc.), apostasy remains punishable by death or imprisonment. If "no compulsion in religion" is universally valid, these laws are un-Islamic. But they're based on sahih hadith and 1400 years of jurisprudence.
"Whoever Kills a Person..." - The Deceptive Quote
The second favorite verse for apologists is Quran 5:32, usually quoted: "Whoever kills a person, it is as if he has killed all mankind."
This sounds like Islam universally prohibits killing. But read the full verse:
"Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land—it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one—it is as if he had saved mankind entirely." — Quran 5:32
Notice what Muslims omit when quoting this verse:
1. "We decreed upon the Children of Israel": This is a decree for Jews, not Muslims. The Quran is recounting what Allah told the Israelites, not commanding Muslims. The very next verse (5:33) prescribes the Islamic law on killing—and it's far less merciful.
2. "Unless for a soul or for corruption in the land": The prohibition has massive exceptions. Killing is permitted in retaliation ("for a soul") and to stop "corruption in the land" (fasad fil-ard).
What counts as "corruption in the land"? Islamic jurisprudence interprets this broadly: apostasy, adultery, homosexuality, highway robbery, rebellion against Islamic authority, and opposing Islam's spread. Essentially, the exceptions swallow the rule.
Quran 5:33: The Verse Muslims Don't Quote
Immediately after 5:32 comes the actual Islamic law on killing:
"Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment." — Quran 5:33
This is the Islamic law: those who "wage war against Allah and His Messenger" or cause "corruption" should be killed, crucified, or mutilated. The definition of "waging war against Allah" includes rejecting Islam, apostasy, and opposing Islamic authority.
Muslims love to quote 5:32 but conveniently skip 5:33. Why? Because 5:33 reveals what Islam actually teaches about killing—and it's not the message of universal peace they want to convey.
The Abrogation Doctrine
The reason peaceful verses became irrelevant is the Islamic doctrine of abrogation (naskh), based on Quran 2:106:
"We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?" — Quran 2:106
This verse explicitly states that Allah cancels earlier verses with later ones. Islamic scholars developed detailed lists of which verses abrogate which.
As-Suyuti's "Al-Itqan fi Ulum al-Quran" is a classical text on Quranic sciences. It lists verses abrogated by the Sword Verse (9:5), including:
- "There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256)
- "To you your religion and to me mine" (109:6)
- "Pardon them and overlook [their offenses]" (5:13)
- "Repel [evil] by that which is better" (23:96)
- "So remind, for you are only a reminder" (88:21)
Classical scholars identified 124 verses abrogated by 9:5 alone. Every peaceful, tolerant verse Muslims quote? Likely cancelled by later war verses.
Ibn Kathir on the Sword Verse
The most comprehensive abrogation is the Sword Verse (9:5), which Ibn Kathir explains:
"This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, 'It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term.' Al-Awfi said that Ibn Abbas commented: 'No idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah [Surah 9] was revealed.'"
According to classical scholarship, 9:5 cancelled all peace agreements and peaceful verses. This isn't fringe interpretation—this is mainstream Islamic exegesis.
Modern Muslims vs Classical Scholars
Modern Muslim apologists face a dilemma:
Option 1: Accept abrogation — Then admit peaceful verses don't apply anymore, and Islam's final message is one of warfare and conquest (per Medinan surahs).
Option 2: Reject abrogation — Then contradict 1400 years of Islamic scholarship and have no way to resolve Quranic contradictions between peaceful and violent verses.
Most modern apologists try a third way: ignore abrogation when speaking to non-Muslims, emphasize peaceful verses, and hope no one checks what classical scholars actually taught. This is intellectually dishonest.
The Pattern: Dishonest Apologetics
When Muslims quote peaceful verses to prove Islam is tolerant, they're being deceptive in multiple ways:
1. Ignoring abrogation: They don't mention that classical scholars said these verses were cancelled.
2. Cherry-picking verses: They quote 5:32 but not 5:33. They quote early Meccan verses but ignore later Medinan commands.
3. Ignoring historical application: Muslims applied violent verses for 1400 years. If the peaceful verses were authoritative, this wouldn't have happened.
4. Ignoring Islamic law: Sharia explicitly contradicts "no compulsion in religion" through apostasy laws, blasphemy laws, and forced conversion policies.
This isn't honest engagement with Islamic texts—it's propaganda.
Questions to Consider
- If "no compulsion in religion" (2:256) is valid, why do all four schools mandate death for apostasy?
- Why did classical scholars like Ibn Kathir say 2:256 was abrogated if it's still in effect?
- Why do Muslims quote 5:32 (sanctity of life for Jews) but not 5:33 (Islamic law permitting killing, crucifixion, and mutilation)?
- If peaceful verses are authoritative, why did Muslims apply violent verses in conquests for 1400 years?
- Can you name one Muslim-majority country where leaving Islam is fully legal and safe?
- Who should we believe—modern apologists trying to make Islam palatable, or 1400 years of Islamic scholars?
Conclusion
The peaceful verses Muslims cite to defend Islam are either abrogated (cancelled by later verses), taken out of context (5:32 applied to Jews, not Muslims), or contradicted by Islamic law and historical practice. Classical Islamic scholarship recognized this, which is why they developed the abrogation doctrine—to explain why later violent verses supersede earlier peaceful ones.
Modern Muslim apologists quoting these verses are either ignorant of their own tradition or deliberately deceptive. Either way, these verses don't prove Islam is peaceful. They prove Muslims are willing to misrepresent their religion to avoid uncomfortable truths.
The real Islam is found in the later Medinan verses, in Islamic jurisprudence, in 1400 years of application—and that Islam is far from peaceful.
Related articles: Mecca vs Medina, The Context Defense