69 million page views

2.256 could be a solution. Kinda.

Reader comment on item: Arguing over "Can Islam Be Reformed?"
in response to reader comment: Ibn Kathir and Q2:256

Submitted by Alain Jean-Mairet (Switzerland), Oct 7, 2013 at 04:40

Theoretically, Muslims could decide that the verse 2.256 was revealed after the surah 9 (instead of 622 AD, as is generally accepted), thus abrogating the verses 9.5 (conversion or death) and 9.29 (fight the people of the book until they accept dhimma), which are routinely considered as (partial) abrogation of 2.256. One Ibn Ashur, (1879-1979, cited in Friedmann's Tolerance and Coercion in Islam) proposed this already, without much success yet, but why not? It would at least constitute an intellectually honest way to review the standard interpretation of Classical Islam.

But even then, most avid readers of the Koran would be very much tempted to follow Muhammad's example, who killed, tortured and enslaved for years on end, till his death, and never practiced as it is implied in verse 2.256. And we would have over a thousand years of Classical Islam productions to revamp. Nah. The only way out is to dramatically reduce the number of people who are searching for the truth in those scriptures.

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to 2.256 could be a solution. Kinda. by Alain Jean-Mairet

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2021 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)