The difference between a person committing disbelief to repel coercion and a person committing disbelief for the sake of coercion.

The Shaykh : Now, if he does it not to repel coercion, but for the sake of coercion, and he prostrates intending that prostration for this idol, for example, or for this king, does he become a disbeliever or not? There is scholarly disagreement on this issue, as well as on others. The criterion is: if a person performs an act or utters a statement to repel coercion, then he is not judged by what he said. However, if he does it for the sake of coercion, some scholars said that he is judged by what that statement or act implies. Other scholars said that there is a distinction: if the person is a layman who does not know the difference between doing it for the sake of coercion and doing it to repel coercion, then there is no difference. This is the correct view, because a layman does not distinguish between them.