MISINFORMATION
The English newspaper ‘The Indian Express’ (October 19, 1988) featured an article by the editor Mr. Arun Shourie titled “But What About the Verses Themselves?” The article raises several points, but we will focus on the part directly related to the Quran. The central idea conveyed in the article is that the government banned Salman Rushdie’s book, ‘The Satanic Verses,’ due to its potential to offend religious sentiments. By drawing a parallel, Mr. Shourie argues that if this is the case, the Quran should also be banned as it contains verses that may hurt the feelings of other communities.
Mr. Arun Shourie attempts to create the impression that the Quran commands its followers to kill disbelievers by quoting certain verses related to war, suggesting that these verses would be offensive to non-Muslims. Consequently, he argues for the necessity of banning the Quran.
Under the guise of freedom of speech and rational discourse, Mr. Shourie’s argument can be seen as an unjust accusation or a rational distortion. He presents verses from the Quran without proper context and provides his interpretation that is not inherent in the verses. Let us highlight two key references from his citations.
Arun Shourie quotes two verses from the second chapter of the Quran about this matter:
“Slay them wherever you find them [those who fight against you]; drive them out of the places from which they drove you, for [religious] persecution is worse than killing. Do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they fight you there. If they do fight you, slay them—such is the reward for those who deny the truth.” (2:191)
“Fight them until there is no more fitna [religious persecution] and religion belongs to God alone. If they desist, then let there be no hostility except towards aggressors.” (2:193)
After quoting several verses about war, Arun Shourie proceeded to translate a verse from Chapter 33 of the Quran:
“It is not fitting for a believing man or woman to exercise any choice in their affairs once God and His Messenger have decided for them. Anyone who disobeys God and His Messenger is in manifest error.” (33:36)
By selectively presenting quotes from war-related verses, he creates the perception that the Quran instructs the killing of non-Muslims. According to the Quran, when a command from God is given, believers must obey it without hesitation, leaving them with no alternative.
This interpretation by Arun Shourie is unrelated to the Quran, is inaccurate, and arises from taking verses out of context. The verses’ actual context becomes evident when examined in their proper context.
Let us examine the second chapter and provide the translation of the entire passage from which the words mentioned above are taken:
“And fight in God’s cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression, for indeed, God does not love aggressors. Slay them wherever you find them [those who fight against you]; drive them out of the places they drove you, for [religious] persecution is worse than killing. Do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they fight you there. If they fight you, slay them—such is the reward for those who deny the truth. But if they desist, God is most forgiving and merciful. Fight them until there is no more fitna [religious persecution] and religion belongs to God alone. If they desist, then let there be no hostility except towards aggressors.” (Quran, 2:190-193)
Verse 190 of Chapter 2 can be interpreted as follows: “Fight those who fight against you.” This verse pertains explicitly to defensive warfare. It is not a universal or general directive but relates to an emergency in which specific individuals have initiated an aggressive war against believers. Consequently, this verse instructs defensive rather than offensive warfare. Hence, an accurate English translation of this verse would be:
“And fight in God’s cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression, for surely, God does not love aggressors.” (Quran, 2:190)
No law or international standard considers defensive warfare objectionable or criminal. The Ministry of Defence is a crucial governmental institution in many countries, highlighting the importance of defence. It is not possible to abolish the institution of defence within a country. If we cannot take such action, then what right do we have to object to a command in the Quran that aligns with global laws and national and international norms? The right to defend oneself against external aggression is a legitimate right of any nation.
Furthermore, Arun Shourie has quoted the following verse out of context:
“It is not fitting for a believing man or woman to exercise any choice in their affairs once God and His Messenger have decided for them. Anyone who
disobeys God and His Messenger is in manifest error.” (Quran, 33:36)
This verse is entirely unrelated to war. Instead, it was revealed in the context of social reform. Further details can be found in the books that provide commentary on the Quran. In summary, the verse relates to a specific situation involving Zainab bint Jahsh, a woman from the noble Quraysh family and the Prophet’s cousin. The Prophet proposed marriage to her on behalf of Zayd bin Haritha, a formerly enslaved person. Zainab and her family rejected the proposal, considering it an unequal relationship. Zainab herself stated, “I am better in lineage than Zaid.”
Zainab and her family were all Muslims, yet they refused to accept the proposal. At that time, this verse was revealed in the Quran, which meant that Islamic law was based on God’s commandments, not national and family traditions. Therefore, if one believed in God and His Messenger, one should do what was commanded in divine law. We learn from traditions that as soon as this verse was revealed, Zainab and her family abandoned their racial pride and agreed to marry Zainab to Zayd bin Haritha as commanded by God.
From a realistic perspective, this verse heralds a significant social revolution. It establishes human equality for the first time by eliminating artificial notions of superiority and inferiority. This verse of the Quran serves as a source of liberation from racial discrimination, not only for the believers of the Quran but also for all nations. It reminds us of the day when humanity, bound for thousands of years by the chains of social inequality, was set free. A new process was initiated, culminating in establishing human equality as a social norm in modern times.
If a person possesses perceptive eyes and the courage to embrace reality, they will perceive the essence of true humanity in this verse. However, for those lacking insight, this light will appear as darkness.
Let us consider an example—articles 96-106 of the Indian Penal Code on the right of self-defence. Article 96 grants an individual the right to engage in self-defence. Consequently, if someone is attacked and responds with a counter-attack in self-defence, it will not be deemed a legal offence in the eyes of the law. In other words, “Nothing is considered an offence when exercised as a right to private defence.”
If someone claims that these provisions of the Indian Penal Code grant unrestricted freedom to any person to kill anyone opposing their religion, they are undoubtedly mistaken. By extrapolating a specific provision, they misconstrue the command of religious freedom as derived from the right to self-defence.
The law concerning religious freedom in India cannot be inferred from the Penal Code alone. To understand this, one must examine the section of the Indian Constitution that addresses fundamental rights. Only then will it become apparent that Indian law guarantees complete freedom to individuals about their religion. According to this law, no one can be deprived of their right to hold any belief they choose, nor can they be coerced to do so by another individual.
Mr. Arun Shourie committed a similar error in comprehending the Quran. He mistakenly conflated the principles of defence with those of religion. The verses he has cited from the Quran regarding ‘fighting’ address the issue of self-defence, outlining the appropriate actions for Muslims in the face of aggression from others.
Regarding the second matter, which pertains to the Quranic perspective on freedom of religion, one should examine the verses that specifically address religious freedom. Some relevant verses in this context include:
- “There shall be no compulsion in religion: true guidance has become distinct from error. But whoever refuses to be led by Satan and believes in God has grasped the strong handhold that will never break. God is all-hearing and all-knowing.” (Quran, 2:256)
- “So, [O Prophet] exhort them: your task is only to exhort; you are not their keeper.” (Quran, 88:21-22)
Numerous verses in the Quran explicitly affirm that religious faith is a personal choice. Every individual has the right to embrace any belief system or religion they desire and the freedom to change their beliefs at will. Religion is devoid of compulsion, and only peaceful dissemination of the message is permitted.
In essence, Islamic law grants every individual and nation the right to self-defence when faced with aggression. However, when it comes to religious freedom, it acknowledges and upholds the right for everyone to practice their chosen religion. The Quranic injunctions regarding warfare (qital) pertain to the first issue, while the second is unrelated to combat or violence.
