reply to post by Kgnow
Originally posted by Kgnow
What’s the conspiracy? The conspiracy is the deliberate and inaccurate portrayal of freedom of religion in Islam based upon the Qur’anic verse,
”Let there be no compulsion is religion.” (2:256)
I was a bit disappointed when you didn't address my rebuttal to your points in the other thread, but you did bring them up again here in this one.
Interesting how you skip out on the whole "Meccan" and "Medinite" differentiation here in this one after I told you (unacknowledged by you) that
your assertion that all the peaceful verses were Meccan and all the violent ones were Medinite.
Originally posted by Kgnow
• (Point # 1)
As we can plainly see, the verse in its entire context of revelation is biased towards the belief in and obedience to Allah. The word "Taghut" has
been often white-washed to the incorrect translation of "evil" or "Satan" or "Idols", but infact, "Taghut" means: The action of disbelief and
disobedience to Allah and Islam. In addition, the verse in its entire revealed context ends with a threat of Hell Fire to non-Muslims.
No it doesn't. You claim to be a muslim, yes? Do you know any arabic? Do you know anything about arabic? I admit, it is not my first language (or
even my second), but most stuff isn't difficult to look up. There isn't a single instance of the expression "طَّاغُوتُ" (taghut) in the
Quran where it is used in the context of "The action of disbelief and disobedience to Allah and Islam". I suppose a literal understanding of the
word would be "falsehoods", but in the Quranic context it is used to refer to false deities. Check if you like. You refer to it in 2:256-257, it is
also in 4:51, 4:60, 4:76, 5:60, 16:36, 39:17. You can read the entire contexts there.
So. Your point 1 is complete rubbish.
Next, your point 2 is about how the context of the verse is the expulsion of Bani Nadir, yet your context includes the statement "the verse is
general in meaning", so I'm not sure about the relevance of that entire point, and whether it is even meaningful to show how you've completely
twisted and flipped events and their meanings to suit your own needs. Even more strange is the fact that in a later point, you quote something that
negates this point (that gives the context of the verse to be a completely different incident). Now before you use that to make some statement about
"Oh, but that just proves the contradictoriness of the scripture!", let me point out, half the things you're referencing aren't scripture at all.
They're tafsir, and they're tafsir that very often contradict other tafsir (even the two tafsir you quoted regularly contradict each other).
Your 3rd point is about abrogation. I addressed this a bit in my previous response to you, but I'll do so in some more detail here. Frankly, from
reading what you wrote, I get the feeling you have no idea how abrogation works, and simply gained your information from non-islamic sources (you
might call it a personal attack, and say it isn't relevant to the substance of your argument and I know you claim to be a learned ex-muslim, but when
so much of the stuff you provide is wrong, you'll understand why it causes suspicion). In the sense of abrogation occuring with two statements, both
existing in the Quran, I personally don't believe it exists- again, the go-to example is of the prohibition of alcohol, but as I said in response to
you in the previous thread, the first statement (prohibiting intoxication while praying) doesn't negate or contradict the second (prohibiting
Anyhow, I'm willing to ignore my own understanding as I'm sure alternate views on this exist within Islamic scholarship, but even if I do so, your
statements exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding of how abrogation works. The way you portray it, it seems that ever new revelation could potentially
negate or remove the previous one. It doesn't work like that. Abrogation only works for prescriptive commandments, specific instructions given. You
can't abrogate a descriptive verse, that would make no sense.
Anyhow, you go into a great deal of detail about the events that lead to verse 2:256. I wonder what you'd be saying for surah 9 if you read it in
that context (and the full textual context). Or does that not matter, because it doesn't support your point?
You also mention the last sermon, but I don't quite see how an Islamic statement about there being no compulsion in religion negates or conflicts
with an Islamic statement about the Islamic religion being superior (not that the bit you quoted from the Last Sermon says any such thing, though).