Moina Shaiq is fond, too, of quoting Qur’an 109.1: “Unto you your religion, and unto me mine.” On its face, it sounds like a statement of tolerance — ‘go ahead, keep your religion, we Muslims don’t mind.” But Qur’an 109 means the exact opposite of what Shaiq wants people to believe. The Quraysh tribe had wanted to come to an understanding with Muhammad, where Muslims and non-Muslims would each try out the other’s religion, as we are told in the Hadith:
Said bin Mina (the freed slave of Abul Bakhtari) has related that Walid bin Mughirah, As bin Wail, Aswad bin al-Muttalib and Umayyah bin Khalaf met the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) and said to him: “O Muhammad (upon whom be Allah’s peace and blessings), let us agree that we would worship your God and you would worship our gods, and we would make you a partner in all our works. If what you have brought was better than what we possess, we would be partners in it with You, and have our share in it, and if what we possess is better than what you have brought, you would be partner in it with us and have your share of it.” At this Allah sent down: Qul ya-ayyuhal-kafirun (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Hisham also has related this incident in the Sirah).
Wahb bin Munabbih has related that the people of Quraish said to Allah’s’ Messenger: “If you like we would enter your faith for a year and you would enter our faith for a year.” (Abd bin Humaid, Ibn Abi Hatim).
Sam Shamoun notes:
These traditions show that the Quraish had proposed such things to the Holy Prophet not once, in one sitting, but at different times and on different occasions; and there was need that they should be given a definite, decisive reply so that their hope that he would come to terms with them on the principle of “give and take” was frustrated for ever.
If the Surah is read with this background in mind, one finds that it was not revealed to preach religious tolerance as some people of today seem to think, but it was revealed in order to exonerate [sic for ‘distinguish’]] the Muslims from the disbelievers’ religion, their rites of worship, and their gods, and to express their total disgust and unconcern with them and to tell them that Islam and Corfu (unbelief) had nothing in common and there was no possibility of their being combined and mixed into one entity. Although it was addressed in the beginning to the disbelieving Quraish in response to their proposals of compromise, yet it is not confined to them only, but having made it a part of the Quran, Allah gave the Muslims the eternal teaching that they should exonerate [distinguish] themselves by word and deed from the creed of kufr wherever and in whatever form it be, and should declare without any reservation that they cannot make any compromise with the disbelievers in the matter of Faith.”
The verse ought to be understood correctly thus: “Unto us our [true] religion, unto you your [false] religion, and don’t you dare try to confuse or mix up the two. There is to be no compromise with the disbelievers.”
Moina Shaiq knows that on its face, unwary Infidels will take this verse as an affirmation of religious freedom — go ahead, practice your religion and we Muslims will practice ours, happy to leave you alone. She will not tell her “Meet A Muslim” audience three things.
First, she will not explain the context of Qur’an 109, which was a response to attempts by non-Muslims to persuade Muhammad to engage in an ecumenical give and take, with Muslims and non-Muslims agreeing to try out the faith of the other. Muhammad was giving a firm “No” to this curious idea.
Second, there is another, independent reason to dismiss Qur’an 109: it dates from the earlier, Meccan period, and has been held to be abrogated by later verses that contradict it. Even if we were to take Qur’an 109 as benign, and declare it to be a statement of laissez-faire tolerance, it remains contradicted and abrogated by Qur’an 9:29 (“kill the Unbelievers wherever you find them”), which is a later verse. Moina Shaiq knows, of course, about the doctrine of naskh, or abrogation of earlier verses by later ones that contradict them. That explains why she has been careful to call Qur’an 109 one of the last suras chronologically, even though it is not. She does this because she does not want anyone to suggest that Qur’an 109 could have been “abrogated.” The same abrogation applies, of course, to another favorite verse of apologists for Islam: “There shall be no compulsion in religion.” (Qur’an 2:256)
Third, Moina Shaiq does not mention that there are only three options traditionally available to non-Muslims conquered by the forces of Islam: conversion to Islam, death, or accepting the permanent status of dhimmi, subject to a host of onerous conditions including, most notably, payment of the jizyah. Though Muslim states no longer enforce the rules for dhimmis, those rules remain part of Islam, and wherever ISIS conquered, these rules were reimposed on non-Muslims. This is hardly a case of benign laissez-faire, of “Unto me my religion, and unto you yours.” It is, rather, “unto me my religion” and “I’ll make your life most unpleasant, even assuming you are allowed to stay alive, if you don’t convert to mine.”