At five in the afternoon, Cairo time (66).. Islam and Freedom of Opinion and Expression (5)

“There is no compulsion in religion”… From the Question of Man to the Principle of Freedom

After pausing in the previous article at the Qur’anic image of the human being —
Is he a free, responsible creature, or a being driven without will? —
we now arrive at the verse that constitutes the clearest translation of that image,
the logical conclusion of the idea of vicegerency,
and the dividing line between religion as a call and authority when it cloaks itself in it:

“There is no compulsion in religion.”
(Al-Baqarah: 256)

A verse brief in wording,
yet among the weightiest in the Qur’an in significance,
because it touches the very essence of the relationship between faith and freedom,
between belief and conscience,
and between religion and authority.

And the unavoidable question is:
Did this verse come as a circumstantial exception?
Or as a general principle governing the understanding of religion itself?

From the Free Human Being… to Free Faith

When the Qur’an presents the human being as a vicegerent on earth,
capable of choice,
responsible for his actions,
it lays the logical foundation for the freedom of faith itself.

Vicegerency has no meaning without freedom,
accountability has no meaning without choice,
and reward and punishment are meaningless if the human being is compelled and possesses no control over his own affairs.

From this perspective, the verse
“There is no compulsion in religion”
does not come as a marginal addition,
but as a natural outcome of a comprehensive Qur’anic vision of the human being.

Faith, in the Qur’anic conception, is not behavior produced by force,
nor a condition imposed by the sword,
nor a ritual extracted through fear.

Faith coerced upon its holder
is not faith,
but outward compliance without conviction,
form without substance.

For this reason, the verse does not say:
no compulsion in some of religion,
nor at a particular stage,
nor under exceptional circumstances,
but negates compulsion in absolute terms.

Why Did This Verse Disturb Authority?

Because it withdraws the most dangerous instrument of control:
the coercion of conscience.

Authority — any authority —
can compel the body,
but when it loses the ability to subjugate the inner self,
it loses complete control.

Thus it is no surprise that this verse has been besieged throughout history:
at times by claiming it was abrogated,
at times by restricting it to a specific context,
and at times by emptying it of its practical content.

Despite the fact that the overall Qur’anic context,
the life of the Prophet ﷺ,
and the experience of the state in Medina
all affirm that coercion was never an instrument of the call to faith.

Coercion… Where Does It Begin and Where Does It End?

Compulsion in religion is not limited to forcing non-Muslims to enter Islam.

It extends to more subtle — and more widespread — forms:
• Forcing a Muslim to adopt a single belief by coercion,
• Imposing one interpretation as the only legitimate understanding,
• Punishing questioning under the pretext of “protecting fundamentals,”
• Criminalizing difference as a departure from the community.

Here, freedom of belief intersects with freedom of opinion and expression,
because if conscience is free,
its expression cannot be a crime.

Without this link — freedom of expression —
freedom of belief becomes a theoretical right with no effect.

Between Text and Practice: Returning to the Problem

As with everything related to freedom in Islam,
a strict distinction must be made between principle and history.

Yes, Islamic history witnessed moments of repression,
opinions were confiscated,
and religion was sometimes used to justify coercion.

But these facts — however often repeated —
do not rewrite the text
nor abolish the principle.

The difference here is fundamental:
between what is religiously fixed
and what is politically variable.

The flaw was not in the verse
“There is no compulsion in religion,”
but in those who sought to rule in the name of religion,
not to call to it.

State and Religion… Who Imposes What?

When the boundaries between religion and state become blurred,
coercion becomes possible.

When the state speaks in the name of religion,
it is tempted to impose conformity.

And when religion is used as an instrument of power,
it loses its moral essence
and turns from a message of liberation into a means of control.

But when religion is understood as a call free of compulsion,
and the state is administered as a human contract open to critique and accountability,
the space of repression diminishes
and the domain of freedom expands.

“No Compulsion in Religion”… What Does It Mean Today?

It means that faith is not measured by silent obedience,
not protected by punitive laws,
and not preserved by silencing dissent.

It means that freedom of opinion
is not a threat to religion,
but a condition for its authenticity.

A religion that fears questioning
is not a strong religion,
but a fragile discourse that derives its existence from prohibition rather than persuasion.

In this sense,
the verse
“There is no compulsion in religion”
is not merely an ethical slogan,
but a civilizational principle
without which any discussion of Islam and freedom of opinion and expression cannot stand.

In the Next Part

In the next installment, we will go a step deeper
and pose the question that reveals the philosophy of freedom in the Qur’an at its roots:

Why did God not compel people to believe?

There,
the relationship between divine power,
human freedom,
and the meaning of choice in existence becomes clear.

To be continued…

Paris: 5:00 p.m., Paris time.