This is the strongest axis in Shahrur and Human Rights. Its strength is that it does not begin from a general slogan about tolerance, but from the negation of coercion in religion and the right to peaceful expression, then tests this in the file of jihad, fighting, and violence.
The central idea
For Shahrur, freedom of belief is not a concession granted by authority, but a limit on authority. If there is no compulsion in religion, then religion may not be turned into an instrument of political or social coercion. And if peaceful expression is a right, then disagreement may not be turned into violence, takfir, or erasure.
The strongest evidence
No compulsion in religion: established by No compulsion in religion is a genus negation together with the axis al-Baqara 256. The strength of this evidence is that it makes the negation of coercion a general rule, not an exception.
Peaceful freedom of expression: established by peaceful freedom of expression. The strength of this evidence is that it links the right to opinion with peace and the negation of violence.
Law regulates freedom and does not confiscate it: read together with Freedom is the default, bounded by the constitution and regulated by law. This prevents freedom from being understood as chaos, and prevents law from being understood as an instrument of religious coercion.
Apostasy is not a basis for worldly coercion: read together with Historical apostasy mixed the religious with the political, and there is no worldly punishment for it. This evidence is important because it separates belief from political punishment.
Its relation to violence
The issue of violence does not swallow this axis, nor does this axis swallow the issue of violence. Freedom of belief establishes the rule: no coercion. As for jihad, fighting, and terrorism, it studies what happens when force, aggression, or defense occurs.
Therefore, jihad, fighting, and the critique of violence must be read as a test of the freedom principle, not as a substitute for it. The question is not: is there only freedom of belief? Rather: does this conception prevent the legitimization of open violence in the name of religion?
The rights-based comparison
In international comparison, this axis corresponds to the articles on freedom of thought, conscience, religion, opinion, and expression. It is therefore directly connected to the page the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
But comparison here does not mean identity. Shahrur builds the argument from within the Qur’an, freedom, and the civil state, while the international covenant builds it in international legal language. The purpose of comparison is to reveal the strength of the overlap and the limits of translation between the two languages.
Limits of the axis
This axis is strong in negating coercion and establishing freedom of belief and peaceful opinion. But it needs broader research into detailed issues: changing religion, public practice of rituals, legal restrictions on expression, hate speech, and the relationship with international humanitarian law in situations of fighting.