His saying, exalted and majestic is He: "Indeed, those who do not believe in the signs of Allah, Allah does not guide them, and they will have a painful punishment." "Indeed, only those who do not believe in the signs of Allah fabricate lies, and they are the liars." "Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief, except for one who is compelled while his heart is at peace with faith, but whoever expands his breast with disbelief, upon them is the wrath of Allah, and they will have a great punishment."

The meaning from existence is that those whom Allah does not guide do not believe in His signs. However, He has presented this in this order and delayed the concern for condemning their actions and denouncing their speech. This is like His saying: "So when they deviated, Allah caused their hearts to deviate" [As-Saff: 5]. What is meant is what we have mentioned, as if He said: Indeed, those who did not believe, Allah did not guide them.

And His saying, exalted and majestic is He: "Indeed, only those who fabricate lies" means: only they lie. This is a response to those who said to Muhammad, blessings and peace be upon him: "Indeed, you are a fabricator." And "only" is always restrictive, but its restriction differs according to the meanings in which it occurs. The meaning may imply that its restriction is real, like His saying, exalted and majestic is He: "Indeed, Allah is one God" [An-Nisa: 171]. And it may imply that its restriction is metaphorical and exaggerated, like when you say: "Indeed, the brave is 'Antarah.'" And thus it is in this verse. Al-Zajjaj said: This type fabricates lies because when they see the signs that only Allah can produce, they deny them. This is the most egregious lie. And He repeated the meaning in His saying: "And they are the liars" for the benefit of attributing the description of lying to them, as the description of something is more impactful than the news about it. This is because the description implies permanence more than the news does. So He began in this verse with the news and then confirmed it with the description. This perspective has been opposed by a Meccan, but his objection is not strong. And "whoever" in His saying: "Whoever disbelieves" is a substitute for His saying: "the liars," and Al-Zajjaj did not permit any other interpretation of this. He saw that the statement until the end of the exception is incomplete, so he connected it to what preceded it, and what Al-Zajjaj rejected is permissible according to what I will present now, if Allah wills.

Qadi Abu Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, said:

And this is supported by what has been narrated that his saying: ﴿And they are the liars﴾ is intended to refer to Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh, and Maqis ibn Sababah and their likes from those who had believed in the Messenger of Allah and then apostatized. So when he clarified in this verse the matter of the liars by stating that they are those who disbelieved after having faith, he excluded from this description the believing people who were being tortured in Mecca, such as Bilal, Ammar, Sumayyah his mother, Khabbab, Suhayb, and their likes. This is because the disbelievers of Mecca were, in the early days of Islam, harming those who had converted from among these due to their weakness, and torturing them to make them apostatize. So perhaps some of them would comply with what they wanted in words. It has been narrated that Ammar ibn Yasir did that, and Allah excluded him in this verse. The concession remained general in the matter thereafter. Then he began informing that among those who have a heart expanded with disbelief is upon them. And this pronoun refers to the meaning of 'who' and not to its wording.

Qadi Abu Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, said:

And in this is an objection that the matter of Ibn Abi Sarh and those like him was while the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, was in Medina, and the apparent meaning of this verse is that it is Meccan. And a group said: 'Who' in His saying: ﴿Whoever disbelieves﴾ is an introduction, and His saying: ﴿Whoever expands﴾ is a specification from Him. And the exception entered due to what we mentioned about the exclusion of Ammar and his likes, and it approached the first exception with the correction of 'but'. And His saying: 'Upon them' is news about the first and second 'who'; as it is one in meaning. This is because the news in His saying is intended for the category that has expanded with disbelief. Thus, 'expanded' is in the accusative as a distinction. And His saying: ﴿Expanded with disbelief﴾ means: he has willingly opened himself to disbelief. It is narrated that Ammar ibn Yasir complained to the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, about what was done to him from the torture, and what he heard from the words. He said to him: 'How do you find your heart?' He said: 'I find it at peace with faith.' He said: 'Then respond to them with your tongue, for it will not harm you. And if they return, then return.' And this verse relates to some issues of coercion. As for one who is tortured by a disbeliever who is able to make him disbelieve with his tongue, and the torture leads to his death, then he has the response with the tongue, one saying in what I preserve. If he intends from him the response with an action, such as prostrating to an idol and the like, then there is a difference in this. A group, which is the majority, said: He responds according to the principle of taqiyyah (dissimulation). And a group said: He does not respond, and he surrenders himself. And a group said: If the idol is towards the qiblah, he responds and believes that the prostration is for Allah.

Qadi Abu Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, said:

And how appropriate it is for him to prostrate to Allah at that time wherever he turns. And this is permissible in travel due to the fatigue of dismounting from the mount while moving. So how about this? And a group argued for the differentiation in prohibition by the saying of Ibn Mas'ud: 'There is no speech that can ward off two lashes from a ruler except that I would speak it.' So he limited the concession to words without actions.

And this is not a proof, because it is possible that he made the speech an example while he means that the action is in its ruling. As for coercion in buying, divorce, emancipation, breaking the fast in Ramadan, drinking alcohol, and similar sins that are between the servant and Allah, glorified and exalted is He, the coerced person is not obligated to anything from that. This was said by Mutarrif, and it was narrated from Malik. Ibn Abd al-Hakam and Asbagh also said it, and they narrated it from Ibn al-Qasim from Malik. Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, distinguished between what has a saying, like emancipation and divorce, and he made in it the concept of taqiyyah. He said: There is no taqiyyah in what is an action, like drinking alcohol and breaking the fast in Ramadan, and it is not permissible for the coerced to do it. As for the oppressed, he is pressured until he sells his belongings, and that is a sale that is not permissible for him. He is more entitled to his belongings, taking them without a price, and the buyer sells that unjust person for a price. If the belongings are lost, he returns with their price or their value - usually more than that - upon the unjust one if the buyer is unaware of his injustice. Mutarrif said: And whoever among the buyers knows the condition of the coerced, he is liable for what he purchased from his slave and his belongings, like a usurper. As for one who does not know, he is not liable for the belongings and the animals, but he is liable for what was lost because of him, like food he consumed or a garment he wore. And the produce - whether he knew or did not know - is not his in any case; he is liable for it like a usurper. This was also said by Asbagh and Ibn Abd al-Hakam. Mutarrif said: And everything that the buyer innovates in that, whether emancipation, management, or confinement, does not obligate the coerced, and he has the right to take his belongings. As for coercion to kill a Muslim, or to flog him, or to take his wealth, or to sell his belongings, there is no excuse in it, and there is no coercion in committing a sin that is violated by anyone, like fornication, murder, or similar acts. Mutarrif, Asbagh, and Ibn Abd al-Hakam said: No one should do that even if he is killed if he does not do it. If he does it, he is sinful, and the punishment and retribution are obligatory upon him. Malik said: Restraint is coercion, imprisonment is coercion, and threatening is coercion even if it does not occur if the wrongdoing of that transgressor is confirmed and the enforcement of what he threatens is considered. I consider coercion according to the determination of the coerced and his standing in religion, and according to the extent of the thing he is coerced to do. Hitting may be coercion in one matter and not in another. For these cases, the jurisprudence of the situation applies. As for the oath of the coerced, as we said, it is not binding. Ibn al-Majashun said: It is the same whether he swears in what is for Allah, glorified and exalted is He, an act of obedience or disobedience if he is coerced to swear. This was said by Asbagh. Mutarrif said: If he is coerced to swear in what is an act of disobedience for Allah, glorified and exalted is He, or in what is not an act of obedience or disobedience, then the oath in it is void. If he is coerced to swear in what is an act of obedience, like a ruler taking a wicked man and coercing him to swear by divorce that he will not drink alcohol, or not commit sins, or not deceive in his work, or a father making his son swear in such a manner as a form of discipline, then the oath is binding even if the coerced person has erred in what he has undertaken from that. This was stated by Ibn Habib. As for if a man is coerced to swear otherwise his wealth will be taken from him - like the tax collectors, the oppressors of the agents, and the people of transgression - Mutarrif said: There is no taqiyyah in that, and a person only repels with his oath from his body, not from his wealth. Ibn al-Majashun said: He does not break his oath even if he repels for his wealth and does not fear for his body. Ibn al-Qasim said: According to the saying of Mutarrif, and it was narrated from Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, and it was said by Ibn Abd al-Hakam, Asbagh, and Ibn Habib. Mutarrif and Ibn al-Majashun said: And if the one swearing is in a situation of coercion to the unjust ruler before he asks him to repel with it what he fears for his body and wealth, and he swears to him, then it is binding upon him. This was said by Ibn Abd al-Hakam and Asbagh. It was also said by Ibn al-Majashun regarding someone who was taken by an unjust person and swore to him by absolute divorce without him making him swear and left him while he is lying, and he only swore out of fear of being beaten, killed, or having his wealth taken. If he was only volunteering the oath out of overwhelming fear and hope for salvation from his wrongdoing, then he has entered into coercion and there is nothing upon him. If he did not swear in hope of salvation, then he is sinful. If the ruler accuses someone of doing something and says to him: You must be punished unless you swear to me, if that matter is one that the coerced person is compelled to do - whether it is an act of obedience or neither obedience nor disobedience - then taqiyyah applies in this. But if the matter is one that it is not permissible for him to do and the prohibition of the ruler in it is correct, then there is no taqiyyah in the oath, and he is sinful. This was said by Malik and Ibn al-Majashun. This is a brief overview of the issues of coercion.