It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Islam's Lie: "There Is No Compulsion In Religion" (2:256)

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 06:12 PM
reply to post by wildtimes

People in America have been traumatized by 9/11. We are on edge, and have been in "terror alert" status for over a decade now. One has to wonder what other attacks on British and American soil might have been like if we "hadn't" been alert and watchful. We were starting to relax.

and then the Boston bombing happens.. What timing!!!

You are learned in Psychology, atleast you can connect the dots..

9/11 (not done by muslims) => justification and attack on muslim countries => muslims fighting back/feed up of wars being imposed on them and their brothers and sisters in faith => some retaliate in wrong ways => and the circle continues..

posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 06:19 PM
reply to post by logical7

Correct. Congratulations....You finally figured it out.

posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 06:35 PM
reply to post by maes2

Hello maes2, and welcome to the discussion!

I appreciate the time you put into your response, but I must inform you that you are wrong on both of your rebuttals. If you allow me some words, I will illustrate why.

You Said;
“your big mistake is that you are saying that Taghut means non_muslim, and Allah means muslim.”

I never said what you accuse me of.

Regarding “Taghut,” in the OP I said;

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.

طاغوت “Taghut” is an Arabic word which has an etymological root (ط + غ) directly linked to طغى “Tagha” which means: “disobeying restrictions and overstepping the set limits.”

As “Tagha” is to “overstep/disobey,”… “Taghut” is “to overstep/disobey Allah.”
The word Taghut is an all-encompassing word which holds to no singularity of meaning. In a generalized way, “Taghut” may refer to Satan, or jinn/demons, or evil beings, or idols, or tyrannical rulers/leaders, or the deification/worship of a person or object, or holding ideas, rulings, judgments, and opinions above Allah’s words.

All of these concepts are inclusive of Taghut, therefore, “Taghut” is a generalized and all-encompassing word which means “The action of disbelief and disobedience to Allah and Islam.”

There are specific words for “evil” and “Satan” and “idols” and “worshipping others besides Allah.” If critical specification was intended, the word “Taghut” would not have been used, but instead the actual word for “idol” or “false worship” or “Satan” would have been used.

Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya explains,
“The Taghut are all things that go beyond their boundaries and cause the person to exceed the limits with regards to that which is worshipped, followed, or obeyed. So the Taghut in any nation is whosoever turns to other than Allah and His Messenger for matters of judgement; or is pleased to be worshipped besides Allah; or is followed without a clear proof from Allah; or is obeyed in that which is known to be disobedience to Allah."

Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab explains,
”The word Taghut is general. So everything that is worshipped besides Allah, while being pleased with this worship, whether it is something worshipped, someone followed, or someone obeyed in the absence of obedience to Allah and His Messenger, then that is considered Taghut.”

Mica F. Lindemans of “Encyclopedia Mythica,” defines “Taghut” as: In Islam, a term used to denote everything that dissuades and deviates one from the worship of Allah.

Pickthall defined “Taghut” as “False Deities”
Yusuf Ali defined “Taghut” as “Evil”
Shakir defined “Taghut” as “Satan”
Dr. Ghali defined “Taghut” as “False Gods, Idols, Devils and Seducers”

To worship idols is to "disobey and disbelieve in Allah."
To follow Satan is to "disobey and disbelieve in Allah."
To follow evil leaders is to "disobey and disbelieve in Allah."
To attach greater importance of ideas above Allah "is to disobey and disbelieve in Allah."


The OP point remains:
• (Point # 1)
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.

posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 06:36 PM
reply to post by maes2

You Quote the hadith as:

” 'Abd ibn Hamid, Ibn Jarir and Ibnu'l-Mundhir have narrated from Mujahid that he said:
(The tribe of) Nadir had suckled some people from the tribe of Aws. When the Prophet ordered their banishment, their foster sons from the Aws said: 'We shall go with them and enter into their religion.' But their families prevented them and compelled them to (accept) Islam. Then came down the verse about them: There is no compulsion in the religion. (ad-Durru'l-manthur)

Your above reference prevents the forceful conversion of children to Islam. However, this version that you have quoted is of a significantly weak isnad (chain of narration). Your isnad is broken and missing chains, obvious by the fact it only has four names mentioned: [‘Abd ibn Hamid -> Ibn Jarir -> Ibnul-Mundhir -> Mujahid ]

Your reference is of a much lower authenticity than the references quoted in post #2 of the OP, which prevents the forceful conversion of children to Judaism,…. not Islam as you have referenced.

Allow me to quote that hadith in its more authentic form and in its totality according to a much stronger isnad (chain of narration):

[ Muhammad ibn Musa ibn al-Fadl -> Muhammad ibn Ya'qub -> Ibrahim ibn Marzuq -> Wahb ibn Jarir -> Shu'bah -> Abu Bishr -> Sa'id ibn Jubayr -> Ibn 'Abbas]
“The woman of the Ansar whose boys never survived used to vow that if a boy of hers survived, she would raise him as a Jew. When the Banu'l-Nadir were driven out of Medina they had among them children of the Ansar. The Ansari said: 'O Messenger of Allah! Our Children!' Allah, exalted is He, therefore revealed ”There is no compulsion in religion…”

This was before the Messenger of Allah (SAWS), was commanded to fight the People of the Book. But then Allah's saying “There is no compulsion in religion…” was abrogated and the Prophet was commanded to fight the people of the Book in Surah Repentance (Qur’an, Chapter 9)”.


The OP point still stands:
• (Point #2)
Muhammad annihilated and destroyed the Jewish tribe Banu Nadir, unprovoked. Afterwards, an Ansari woman acquainted with the tribe vowed to convert her child to the religion of Judaism. "No compulsion in religion" was revealed in order to stop an Ansari baby from being raised as a Jew.

posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 06:47 PM
reply to post by Kgnow


Thank you for the informative, frank reply to those of us in this thread questioning the purpose of this thread. It is interesting to know that you are a Muslim apostate, i.e. a former Muslim. Accordingly, I give your POV on the subject much more consideration then than the typical, Westerner anti-Islamic rhetoric I find here so often. For the record, I accepted at face value what your original two posts said; I was responding more to the general/generic anti-Islam memes that are prevalent on ATS. And I hope that you understand that your thread's title is rather provocative if not inflammatory, so you shouldn't be surprised that it got some flack -- even from godless heathen/secular humanists such as myself.

As such, I understand that you are legitimately addressing a specific issue in Muslim theology, rather than a general trashing of the religion on an uninformed basis, and that your call to stick to this subject rather than bring up the negative aspects of other religions makes complete sense and is a very legitimate request. Hence, I'll bow out of further discussion in this thread after this final rejoinder:

I'm all for pointing out the inconsistencies and less savory aspects of all religions, but discussing such matters in a vacuum, i.e. not pointing out similar issues in other major religions, makes the discussion come off as biased; acknowledging similar issues in other religions, as part of your original discussion, helps to raise the level of discourse in your thesis and inoculates it from the criticism that I and others have raised (this would be a good lesson for many ATS posters on any number of issues to take to heart).

For everybody's sake, I am responding to Kgnow's post near the bottom of page 4 in this thread, which is worth taking a look at if one wants to post in this thread:
edit on 11-6-2013 by MrInquisitive because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 06:55 PM

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by logical7

Correct. Congratulations....You finally figured it out.

i figured it out long before i even joined ATS.

Its your turn to figure out that Islam and Muslims are not the problem.

Also in a population of 2 billion, i will be more surprised if there are no nutjobs and extremists, just like your friendly neighbourhood WBC!

It would be foolish to hand them arms and bombs though.

All muslims who are fighting back are not wrong or extremists. The only terrorists are the ones who are doing a premeditated attack on innocents anywhere in the world.

I know you have the integrity to speak out any wrongs no matter who does it and you have honestly suprised me by agreeing that muslims should establish Khilafah again!

On the topic, its just common sense that Islam cannot be forced and so no compulsion of religion holds true.

Islam is not just lip service, it has to come from the heart and muslims know it well.
Hypothetically, If an atheist is forced to become muslim and lives, looks and dies as muslim but had not accepted it in the heart that there is a God, God knows he died an atheist. So no muslim is going to waste time to force anyone.

its Allah who guides the hearts. As simple as it can get.

Maybe kgnow as an ex-muslim know that God sees the heart and no sword, no gun works on the heart.

2:256 There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.

posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 07:04 PM
reply to post by christina-66

Hello christina-66, thank you for joining he discussion.

you've been truly suckered into the whole divide and conquer thing haven't you.

When I used to be a Muslim, I sure was caught up in divided ideology. But now as an apostate and former Muslim, I am trying to bring awareness to the errors I know in Islam through my academic studies with sheikhs and muftis. Islam, the religion itself, teaches intolerance, sexism, slavery, and religious superiority complex. By exposing Islam, I am hoping to awaken the hardened hearts to a beautiful world of true global brotherhood and compassion.

You want this thread to be about Islam alone

When you follow a recipe for a pasta dish, do you complete the recipe as a cake dish or do you stick to the recipe that you are following?

There are ample opportunities in other threads to discuss other religions or groups. I am not biased towards any of them.

But here and now we are discussing the true and substantiated context of Qur'an verse 2:256.

So basically your op is an exercise in spreading hate - nothing more than that. Ask yourself - what would Jesus do?

Did I propagate or ask anyone to hate Muslims? I have repeatedly declared that Muslims and non-Muslims are all my beloved family.

Hate? No!!! I am spreading awareness to an inaccurate representation and understanding of Qur'an verse 2:256

What would Jesus do? He would storm the synagogues and religious debates to expose falsehood, and then after Truth was revealed, nothing but Love and Forgiveness would flow. I'm not a Christian, but based on the Gospels, I believe that's how Jesus would react.


posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 07:18 PM
reply to post by buster2010

I love your twist on history. These people attacked Muhammad then they get their butts kicked so they get expelled from their nations and Muhammad is the tyrannical one? What was he supposed to do say here I am kill me?

It is not my twist on history. It is an accurate representation of historic facts if one were to look at all sides of the issue.

It were the tribe leaders of the Quraysh and their compatriots who attacked the Muslims in Mecca before the Hijra (migration to Medina), not the Jews. However, Muhammad's first military campaigns were against unarmed merchant caravans.

Muhammad accused the Jews of Medina of plotting assassination attempts against himself. There was never any proof, evidence, or action witnessed regarding assassination plots against Muhammad, however, it is Muhammad who ordered numerous successful assassinations against various Jewish tribe leaders. The only crimes of the Jews were being too critically outspoken over Muhammad's oppressive taxation and his destabilization of area economics through his caravan robberies.

Only a small fraction of Jews finally took up arms against Muhammad as a direct result of the taxation, assassinations of tribe leaders, destabilization of the economy, and after the expulsions and attacks on other Jewish tribes. Muhammad was the instigator.

posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 07:25 PM
reply to post by polarwarrior

If there is a bunch of people hating on some group, you've got to ask why?

Since when is academic discussion and critical analysis considered hate?

The intention of this thread is to help increase global unity and brotherhood by exposing the errors of Islam, which may help tear down some walls of separation and hate.

I am exposing Islam, I am not propagating the hate of fellow humans who call themselves Muslims. Big difference my friend.

posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 07:32 PM
reply to post by NeoMuslim

I agree, listening to the recitation of the Qur'an is a powerful and moving experience. There's no doubt about the beauty of the vibrational sounds of recitation.

However, when the smoke clears and the curtain is pulled back, we must act as intelligent beings and question what exactly is being recited? What's the history behind the words? How did Muhammad implement the words of the Qur'an?

If I remained enchanted by the harmonics of Qur'anic recitation without ever learning further, I would probably still be a Muslim today.

posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Sonny2
Guy who started this topic is RETARDED. Buy a brain.

I provided nothing but an accurate representation of verse 2:256 in its full context with nothing but Islamic academically accepted references.

I am an ex-Muslim with a significant first-hand tutelage of Islamic domains. I feel you have made a hasty determination about me. If you feel I am lacking mentally, please feel free to rebut or debunk the OP.


posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 07:52 PM
reply to post by babloyi

Basically, I've already covered your main points in my reply to maes2 above ^^

The point being meant by saying Muhammad preached peace and tolerance in Mecca but changed to oppression and totalitarianism in Medina is this: Consider the chronology of Islam. As Muhammad's military became more wealthy due to caravan robberies, and as his might grew by defeating various factions,... during the last several years of his life Muhammad gave the example of conquer, attack, and convert. His proclamations of peace were replaced by jihad. His proclamations of religious freedom were replaced by jizyah taxation. His neighborly love was replaced by conquering or converting further and further and further.

And the purpose to quote his "Farewell Sermon" is to illustrate that Muhammad proclaimed religious superiority in his last major public instruction.

posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 08:29 PM
You haven't quite covered the main points at all. It is true you replied to maes about some of my points, but they're hardly addressed. For example, for all your quoting of salafists and their definitions of words (again, which don't count as scripture), you fail to address the fact that in all those references I gave you for the word taghut, "The action of disbelief and disobedience to Allah and Islam" simply does not fit or make lexical sense. "They would go for judgement in their disputes to the action of disbelief and disobedience to Allah and Islam"? "They believe in the action of disbelief and disobedience to Allah and Islam"? Obviously not.

Also, in the matter of dismissing what maes said about the context of 2:256, you may have dismissed maes's hadith as having a weak isnad, but read a bit more carefully..the ones you quoted in no way support your view (i.e. that it was talking about allowing conversion from Judaism to Islam, rather than preventing it). In fact, in the context of the meaning of the verse (i.e. that there is no compulsion in religion), the second understanding, i.e. preventing forced conversion to Islam from Judaism, makes much more sense. Look at it: children were ALREADY being raised as jews, they were with the jews, and the families wanted them not to leave.

I'm sorry if you were disillusioned by the stringentness of your wahabi teachings, but to project those teachings on to all of Islam is a bit silly.

posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 10:40 PM

Originally posted by maes2
reply to post by dougie6665

your answer: Humanity is the source of difference, not God.

denying the existence of God is the same as denying Logic, second law of thermodynamics and .... !

And [remember] when I inspired to the disciples, "Believe in Me and in My messenger Jesus." They said, "We have believed, so bear witness that indeed we are Muslims [in submission to Allah ]." -Koran 5:111

All of your quotes from the Koran are nice to explain the world from your point of view. But, how do you know that it was not the Koran that was changed by man as opposed to the Hebrew or Christian bible? (Personally as I stated in my prior post I believe all these works are the word of the victors as of the time the books were both written as well as collected into their present form. That applies equally to all of them.)

Second, your comment regarding denying the existence of God is the same as denying logic... From my perspective, it is much more logical that there is not in fact a God. Or at least not a God that demands obedience of a race on a small planet that is a pinpoint in a massive universe. Rather, it is more logical that man does not understand time properly because it flows in both directions, there is neither a beginning or an end. Rather there is constant evolution on a universal scale of which life is a small element thereof for which we should both be grateful and live with respect towards others.

Finally, if there was an all powerful God, why would he require submission. He could simply will it. Why would God care? There is no logic in the final verse I indicated above. These are all nice words and sound innocent and inviting. If you were brought up to believe this without questioning it, I would say the lack of logic is not questioning the text rather than saying to not believe is to deny logic.

Let me put it this way to you, in Christianity, Romans 3:25: "unto eternal life through Jesus Christ. is the basic tenant of Christianity. It is logical to all Christians that believing in Jesus is the path to eternal life and all others are damned to burn in hell. I believed these passages for years. But now as I look at them, I view them as poetry written by idealist men thousands of years ago that expressed their hopes and desires. To say that these statements are logical in view of scientific knowledge or the history of the world subsequent to these writings is not logical. The context of most of these verses and the events they were to predict related to events over a thousand years ago. The Revelations have not come true because they were in fact simply the visions of man and were not based in reality, logic or the truth.

These comments are not meant to be personal to anyone on this forum. Rather, they are an expression of a different view point based on logic rather than reliance on ancient and ambiguous texts that other than identifying some historical figures, have never been a reliable predictor of world events as they purport to be or as true believe purport them to be.

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 03:13 AM
reply to post by Kgnow

And the purpose to quote his "Farewell Sermon" is to illustrate that Muhammad proclaimed religious superiority in his last major public instruction.

Mohammad's final sermon was a beautiful message of brotherhood and unity addressed to Muslims. YOU choose interpret it as proclamation of "religious superiority".

Mohammad doesn't even refer to non-Muslims in his final sermon... and there was nothing in his final sermon that even remotely resembles what you are claiming.

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 09:09 AM
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

And the Muslims failed to do so. Just like the Christians failed to live up to Jesus's suggestions.

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 07:25 AM
reply to post by LABTECH767

Evil will always be evil no matter how many times it claims otherwise, and they shall each receive a mark in there right hand

Hello LABTECH767.

I agree. Evil is evil,... oppression is oppression,... tyranny is tyranny,... and injustice is injustice, regardless of the religion, culture, ideology, or group that cultivates it.

When I used to be Muslim, the constant praying and prostrating (bowing with forehead touching the ground) created a darkened, callus-like mark on my forehead. When I first began to develop this sajdah/sujud mark on my forehead, I immediately thought about "The Mark of the Beast."

However, as the "Beast's Mark" is oriented around commerce and trade, I am no longer inclined to think Islamic prayer marks are the 'Mark of the Beast.'

Although I do not endorse, propagate, nor recommend Islam, I must say, it's theology specifically regarding banking is something I do agree with. Islam forbids usury and interest regarding loans and payments. This one concept, in and of itself, would stop the Centralized-System of Banking from its imposed economic slavery and totalitarian globalization. It would end fractional-reserve lending, and it would end the fiat-currencies whose only intrinsic value is debt.

edit on 13-6-2013 by Kgnow because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 07:44 AM

Originally posted by rjbaggins
reply to post by Kgnow

So it seems that this Muhammad lied, then murdered the guy and married the guys wife. He sounds peaceful to me. I think that this passage you have shown us pretty much sums it all up. Thank you for sharing this. I will pass it on.

Yep. That's the story of Safiyya bint Huyayy of the tribe Banu Nadir. Extremely tragic if we put ourselves in her shoes during the slaughter of her tribe, family, and husband,.... only to survive as the wife of the man who ordered it all.

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 07:55 AM
reply to post by dougie6665

You've made a several valid points

The truth is that killing in the name of God is evil, trying to convert someone to your religion upon the pain of an extreme punishment if that someone is non compliant is evil, using the power of religion to start a war and using that religion to continue to convince the masses of the rightness of the war is evil.

You're right, it shouldn't be this way.

The way I see it, each one of us is deeply and intimately connected to each other. We are all family through Mitochondrial-Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam. There is no true separation between me and you, for there is no scientifically valid isolation nor separation; everything effects, is connected to, and has a relationship with all else. Even by atoms and subatomic particles, we are all one heaping mass of interconnected, structured energy.

To spread suffering unto others is to spread suffering to ourselves. To love others is to love ourselves.


posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 08:09 AM

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Kgnow

That's one of the biggest crocks in Islam. If there truly was no compulsion in Islam they wouldn't murder people who convert to other faiths or call for the murder of infidels.
edit on 9-6-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Good points NOTurTypical.
There would be no issuance of "convert or die" nor jizya tax. There would be no religious jihad, killing fellow humans simply for their beliefs.

In the beginning, Muhammad preached peace. The several years leading up to his death, he taught conversion and conquering by the sword. This is the point Islamoc apologists fail to acknowledge.

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in