Does Islam force itself on others?

a reply to: ElectricFeel

As with all humans, Muslims are my dear brethren. I know that many Muslims are not hate-filled nor murderous, however, Islam's historic Medinan era is. Muhammad initially taught a peaceful system, unfortunately, he molded it into a militaristic totalitarian system during the end of his life.

"2. Read the verses before and after the verse in question "

This criteria you mentioned can not be followed at all times because the Qur'an is a jumbled arrangement. [1] It is not written in the chronological order of revelation. [2] It is not arranged specifically by topic. [3] Stories, concepts, and ideas in the Qur'an are scattered and mixed-up.

Today's Qur'an is said to have been arranged by Angel Gabriel to Muhammad himself. However, the Uthmani Qur'an of today differs, in both arrangement and content, from the Qur'an of Muhammad's personal assistant Abdullah ibn Mas’ud and Muhammad's personal scribe, Ubay ibn Ka'b. Muhammad specifically said to learn Qur'an from Abdullah and Ubay.





Regarding "There is no compulsion in religion…” (Qur'an 2:256), the full and historic context of that verse is:

• (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.

• (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.

• (Point #3)
In the Qur'an, the jihad in Surah 9 abrogates/supersedes the "no compulsion in religion" verse. Additionally, Muhammad's "Final Sermon" commands religious superiority and the separation of Muslims into "one brotherhood" separate from non-Muslims.

a reply to: ElectricFeel

Uhhh take a moment and think about this

The picture presented is that if someone does not stop Islam, it will forcefully convert everyone, even at gunpoint.

That is part of their religious goals...to establish a world caliphate . That all people must be converted or used for slaves , or terminated....

a reply to: ElectricFeel

As long as the call to prayer isn't blasted everyday over loud speaker and women can dress how they want when they want in front of Muslim men, no problem.

a reply to: rumor21
Is that because you are in denial about religion. As I said, look around. Islam and catholocism have the power to end world drought and poverty in one swoop. They would rather have gold chalices and fine ivory towers to preach their #e from.
A free man is someone not restricted by religion of any kind. That means we have to make our own decisions about how we treat our fellow man/woman.
Take responsibility for your own actions, after all compliance is a crime against your god whoever he/she is.

a reply to: rumor21
Christians countries are full of god fearing do-gooders who live a perfect life. The preist don't abuse children or commit any type of crime against god. Wake up and stop being religious because its giving you a selective memory allowing you cherry pick your post answers.
Humans are the problem and rel;igion is the excuse they needed. Is allah really giving these people messages to kill and behead etc. Or is it an excuse by the manipulators to control the sheeple.

a reply to: ketsuko

originally posted by: ketsuko
In some countries a form of Shari'a Law is imposed that demands that those who are not Muslim must conform to the demands of dhimmitude or lose any legal rights they might otherwise have. For those of you familiar with US history, remember Jim Crow? Dhimmitude is designed to be similar in many ways only you can escape it by converting. The aim is to humiliate and impoverish people into converting.

Which country does this? I don't think even ISIS demands that "those who are not muslim conform to dhimmitude" (they'd much rather kill or enslave them).


a reply to: WhiteHat

originally posted by: WhiteHat
The point is: it doesn't matter what your book says,
it matter how its followers act upon it.
It's them who pretend to follow a holy book.
Your book never beheaded or blow up anyone.
Its followers did.
The peace is definitely not upon them.

Ready to talk about facts now?

The point of the thread is "Does Islam force itself on others". If you're going to start a discussion on "Do the followers of Islam force Islam upon others", then statistically (i.e. the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of muslims in the world today) the answer is still no.
What facts did you want to talk about?


a reply to: jamiros

originally posted by: jamiros
For Luke 19:27.. Yeshua is not saying to do these things, he's telling a story known as the Ten Midas parable or Ten Pounds parable. Very interesting read. The king in the story is saying this, not Yeshua.

You are absolutely correct, but the thing people very often miss in this parable is that the king represents Jesus. In the story, the character of the king is used to portray Jesus's point of view. So the point still works.

a reply to: Sahabi

originally posted by: Sahabi
This criteria you mentioned can not be followed at all times because the Qur'an is a jumbled arrangement. [1] It is not written in the chronological order of revelation. [2] It is not arranged specifically by topic. [3] Stories, concepts, and ideas in the Qur'an are scattered and mixed-up.

Surahs were revealed (in general) as a whole, and can be read as a whole. I don't quite see what the revelance of it not being in chronological or topical order is. The context of the verse that was quoted in the OP can very easily be understood if one simply reads the surah it is situated in.

originally posted by: Sahabi
• (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.

Quite simply, no it doesn't. Lets check out some other places "taghut" is used:

Translation of Surah Az-Zumar, verse 17
And those who avoid the false gods lest they worship them, and turn to Allah: for them are glad tidings

"Those who avoid the action of disbelief and disobedience to Allah and Islam lest they worship them"?

Translation of Surah An-Nisa verse 60
They wish to go for judgment to the false deities...

"They wish to go for judgement to the action of disbelief and disobedience to Allah and Islam"?
Yeah, no.

originally posted by: Sahabi
• (Point #3)
In the Qur'an, the jihad in Surah 9 abrogates/supersedes the "no compulsion in religion" verse. Additionally, Muhammad's "Final Sermon" commands religious superiority and the separation of Muslims into "one brotherhood" separate from non-Muslims.

Again, no it doesn't. You really should preface this with "In my opinion" or "The strange version of Islam I learnt says that...", because I've provided you with hadith before that not only generally shows that every chronologically later verse doesn't automatically nullify a previous one, AS WELL AS specificly shows that the the "jihad in Surah 9" doesn't abrogate or supersede previous verses (as the salaf were still referring to those rather than surah 9).

And in response to the general tone in this thread about how Christians do not behave the same way today, that's not really true at all. It is quite illogical to compare a secure, highly developed and educated nation (that happens to be Christian) with a war-torn, developing and uneducated nation (that happens to be Muslim). Compare it with the Christian nations in Africa, compare it with the actions of Christians in India for a better analysis.

a reply to: babloyi
Well put. I do think you should be asking the muslims the same question. I would like to ask is Islam forced on its followers. I don't know the facts but are you allowed to leave islam and still be safe.
Yes Christians that live in poverty use religion as an excuse to commit atrocities as well as muslims and non religious people. You are right education is the key. Education that involves all sides and not exclusively the religious educators. Will Islam teach about Christianity and other religions so your people can choose who to follow and how to follow?

a reply to: ElectricFeel

Does a bear # in the woods?

If you even have an iota of doubt go to liveleak and checkout ISIS burning people in cages. I think that sums it all up.

Hey chewi!
a reply to: chewi

originally posted by: chewi
Well put. I do think you should be asking the muslims the same question. I would like to ask is Islam forced on its followers. I don't know the facts but are you allowed to leave islam and still be safe.

Allowed by who? Countries with majority muslim population? The interpretation of Islamic Law by people within those countries? Certainly, there are many countries with a majority muslim population that threaten capital punishment on apostates, but there are also many such countries that do not have any punishment at all.

originally posted by: chewi
Yes Christians that live in poverty use religion as an excuse to commit atrocities as well as muslims and non religious people. You are right education is the key. Education that involves all sides and not exclusively the religious educators. Will Islam teach about Christianity and other religions so your people can choose who to follow and how to follow?

Islam itself makes absolutely no laws against teaching about Christianity and other religions. In terms of muslim majority countries, I think Saudi Arabia is the only one that actually prohibits the open practice of another religion (and I'm probably generalising there, since there are churches/church meetups in some enclaves in Saudi Arabia), but most other countries have no issue with Christians teaching about their religion (why would "Islam" teach about Christianity anyhow?). Again, some muslim majority countries have laws against non-muslims proselytising to muslims, and some such countries do not- it isn't related to Islam, however.

There is absolutely no question that there are muslim majority countries with really bad track records on issues of freedom and humanity and such. But I don't think that is the question being asked here.

A friend of mine goes to a day class for sewing - 2 hours a week of what she thought would be learning, joining a group of like minded women and enjoyment.

Unfortunately two English convert islamists have joined and it appears they are on a charm offensive making themselves so over friendly its embarrassing. Once the class got underway and they had quietened down (as all the other women had turned up to learn how to sew) , one of them led the conversation onto Pakistan and announced she "had 'lived in Pakistan and had come back to dispel the myths".

Fortunately before she could follow through one of the class asked the teacher for something and they all moved on. My friend said she now isn't looking forward to her sewing class so much anymore because she feels its only a matter of time before one of them starts proselytising.

a reply to: chewi

Where do you stand with your stereotyping abilities when thinking about secular countries I wonder? I find you a bit off on what you think about 'Christian Countries'.

The more people I talk to especially those who have come to the UK from Islamic countries, the more I am surprised as to the fact many don't want to be religious at all. I know a number of Iranians who feel Islam had been forced onto them and it was a similar view held by several Algerian and other people one would assume were Muslim. Perhaps, apart from the regular worshippers who want to spread their views onto everyone, more and more are wanting to simply enjoy their lives without too much religion enforced on them. Celebrations aside many don't practise at all.

The desert religions produce separatist attitudes and some qualify their existence only through their religious persuasion, its from this only that they take their identify, so take it away and they would have nothing left. one thing true today though is that both Judaism and Islam produce terrorists. Hopefully Christianity still has its belly full of its past activities in that direction.

a reply to: ElectricFeel

That is a really nice sermon. I don't 100% agree with every point
but don't let that detract from the overall point and style.
I hope you can get some of the other Muslims to believe it.
Right now, life is cheap in that part of the world.

a reply to: babloyi

There is no "universally agreed upon" Islam. There are differences in understanding, practice, adherence, and opinion throughout the Muslim Umma. Certain hadith traditions and certain Qur'anic interpretations & tafsir are accepted by a cross-variety of Islamic schools of thought, jurisprudences, scholars, sheikhs, imams, sects, and individuals.

You are personally free and welcome to choose whichever Islamic understandings, interpretations, and traditions you will accept or discard.




As you know, Arabic is an extremely rich language. Words have several layers of meaning. The same can be said about the word Taghut.

Taghut means to "cross the limits, overstep boundaries," or "to rebel."

In Islamic terminology, the word refers to idolatry or to worship anything except Allah (Glory be to Him) . Taghut also denotes one who exceed their limits. The first stage of error is fisq (I.e. disobeying Allah without denying that one should obey Him), the second is kufr, (i.e. rejection of the very idea that one should obey Allah). The last stage would be to rebel against Allah (Glory be to Him) but also impose their rebellious will of Allah upon others, those who reach this stage are taghut.

The word Taaghoot is general. So everything that is worshipped besides Allah (Glory be to Him) , while being pleased with this worship – whether it is something worshipped, someone followed, or someone obeyed in the absence of obedience to Allah (Glory be to Him) and His Messenger, then that is considered Taaghoot.

1. The Devil who calls the people to worship other than Allah (Glory be to Him).

2. The tyrannical and oppressive ruler who changes Allah (Glory be to Him)’s rulings.

3. The one who judges by other than what Allah has revealed.

4. The one who claims to have knowledge of the Unseen, apart from Allah (Glory be to Him).

5. The one who is worshipped apart from Allah (Glory be to Him) , while being pleased with being worshipped.

Taghut (AskIslamPedia)

It is fine if you do not agree with abrogation or the superseding of certain verses. However, many scholars and Islamic writings do. There is no "universally agreed upon" Islam. Also, I did not imply that chronology is an automatic factor for abrogation.

A few years after the "No compulsion in religion" verse was revealed, this is the set of verses that were revealed to abrogate/supersede it.

"1. [This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists.

2. So travel freely, [O disbelievers], throughout the land [during] four months but know that you cannot cause failure to Allah and that Allah will disgrace the disbelievers.

3. And [it is] an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah is disassociated from the disbelievers, and [so is] His Messenger. So if you repent, that is best for you; but if you turn away - then know that you will not cause failure to Allah . And give tidings to those who disbelieve of a painful punishment.

4. Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

5. And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."

- Qur'an, Suratul Tawbah, ayah 1-5 (9:1-5)

Verse 1-3 state that Allah and Muhammad are now disassociated from all non-believers.

Verse 4 says to honor the remaining treaties with non-believers only until their predetermined length has expired.

Verse 5 says to kill, enslave, and besiege all non-believers anywhere unless they become Muslim, indicated by "repent, prayer, and zakah".



Chapter 9 of the Qur'an contains many of the last verses to be revealed in Islam including:

"O you who have believed, fight those near to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous."

- Quran, Suratul Tawbah, ayat 123 (9:123)

"O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination."

- Quran, Suratul Tawbah, ayah 73 (9:73)

And a few years after this declaration of all-out jihad against non-Muslims, Muhammad gave his "Farewell Sermon" shortly before his death. In this final sermon, Muhammad states that the only superiority among mankind is religious superiority:

"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by taqwa (piety through the obedience of Allah) and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood."

• Point:
In the Qur'an, the jihad in Surah 9 abrogates/supersedes the "no compulsion in religion" verse. Additionally, Muhammad's "Final Sermon" commands religious superiority and the separation of Muslims into "one brotherhood" separate from non-Muslims.




Abrogation aside, how about we examine purely historic events. In the early Meccan period, Muhammad preached non-violence and pacifism. Upon establishing a power base and military during the later Medina period, Muhammad's message evolved into propagation and fighting.

When Muhammad left Mecca and emigrated to Medina, was it not Muhammad's forces who provoked the Meccans by launching caravan raids? Caravan Raids

Was it not the Muslim Medinans who drew first blood against the Meccan pagans? Nakhla Raid

Were not all military campaigns launched on foreign soil, outside the sovereignty of Medina? Military Campaigns of Muhammad

Were not the assassinations & military campaigns of Muhammad launched offensively and preemptively, based upon rumor, alliance, and refusal to pay tribute and tax?

Did not Muhammad practice offensive/preemptive assassinations and militarism up until his death?

Did not Muhammad's immediate successors launch offensive/preemptive military campaigns against religious dissenters, apostates, and political dissidents? Ridda Wars.

a reply to: Sahabi

originally posted by: Sahabi
There is no "universally agreed upon" Islam. There are differences in understanding, practice, adherence, and opinion throughout the Muslim Umma. Certain hadith traditions and certain Qur'anic interpretations & tafsir are accepted by a cross-variety of Islamic schools of thought, jurisprudences, scholars, sheikhs, imams, sects, and individuals.

Absolutely agreed. So it is a bit odd you didn't add this disclaimer in your initial post, voiced as some sort of authoritative and yet impartial and loving and gentle condemnation of Islam as a whole.
On the whole, your discussions and interactions with regards to Islam on this site always seem to be prefaced with how much you love your muslim brothers and have nothing against them, and you're all for togetherness and harmony and all, before attempting to tear them a new one with how their religion is vile and violent. This continues even when faced with posters who show you an interpretation of Islam that disagrees with your viewpoint, where you try your level best to show them that they are wrong. This strikes me as immensely funny. Do you find it funny?

You initially said:

originally posted by: Sahabi
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.

Note the words "white-washed" "incorrect translation" and "actually means"
I then showed you some examples that proved beyond a doubt that this supposed meaning absolutely could not work in the places where "Taghut" was used in the Quran. I don't understand how this discussion is still going on? Now you're talking about layers of meanings? You initial statement is categorically and comprehensively false.

originally posted by: Sahabi
it is fine if you do not agree with abrogation or the superseding of certain verses. However, many scholars and Islamic writings do. There is no "universally agreed upon" Islam. Also, I did not imply that chronology is an automatic factor for abrogation.

Certainly, many scholars and islamic writings do. And many don't. The variation in how many verses were abrogated go from 0 to 20 to 70 to 250 to 600. I'm in no way inserting my personal opinion on the matter as an authoritative truth (as you often seem to be doing). Just pointing out that there is absolutely no consensus within islam that the verses you mention abrogate so much of the Quran, and in fact, that view is currently in the minority. And quoting me something from a 10th century scholar that disagrees and points to 600 abrogations isn't a refutation of my point, when I can provide another 10th century scholar that says there were 12, and recent ones that say there were 5 or even none at all.

Whatever the case, I don't see how it is relevant when I've previously provided hadith that refer to and follow the commands of verses that the so-called verse of the sword should have abrogated, according to your narrative. So the whole idea of "No compulsion in religion has been abrogated so it is no longer valid" is certainly not universal, and in fact is likely not even a majority opinion within Islam.

a reply to: babloyi

There is a chasmic difference between loving my fellow humans and rejecting religious ideology.

Muhammad's religion began with love, acceptance, and non-violence,... and this is the version of Islam that the majority of peace-loving Muslims gravitate toward. Which, is a beautiful thing!

However, the historic context of Muhammad, the Qur'an, and Islam is one of a peaceful system evolving into intolerance, expansionism, and propagation.

Do we deny that the later-period of Muhammad's life and the revelations of the Qur'an were drenched in blood?

a reply to: Sahabi
So as to understand the chain here:
You: Muslims are my dear brothers. I love them all! But Islam is a violent and evil religion!
Muslim: I love you all too! But I am a devout follower of islam (or an interpretation of it at any rate, since as you say, "there is no universally agreed upon Islam"), and I don't follow any vile and evil thing.
You: You're wrong! Islam is vile and evil because of REASONS (related to a narrow interpretation that for some reason is the only interpretation I'm accepting as "Islam", even though it is not the interpretation you're talking about, or even a majority interpretation). Islam is divisive and is tearing humanity as a whole apart!

You seeing the irony here?

a reply to: babloyi

Muslims are individuals,... Islam is a religious ideology based upon a wide spectrum of Qur'anic understandings, linguistic interpretations, and exegeses, in addition to its context according to historic events, hadiths, and traditions. Uncountable differences of opinion and belief have splintered from such topics. A Muslim, as an individual, may practice and follow Islam according to their own personal will.

The thought, emotional, and character quality of Muslims is no different than any other non-Muslim. Where there is love, compassion, peace, and acceptance within a Muslim, it can be equally found within non-Muslims. Where there is hate, apathy, violence, and intolerance within a Muslim, it can be equally found within non-Muslims.

Although a Muslim believes in, and/or follows the Qur'an,... the Qur'an still has a different and separate "personality" and "character" than the personality and character of each individual Muslim.

It is a misguided lie to state that "Islam" propagates peace and acceptance. Although personal "belief" and "practice" varies, it is certain that the revelation timeframe to revelation timeframe, in correspondence with actual historic events,... paints a clear and vivid picture that Qur'anic verses of intolerance, fighting, and religious propagation occurred in unison with Muhammad's departure from peace and command of treaty nullification, assassinations, military campaigns, and expansionism. It is more honest to say that, "Islam began by propagating peace and acceptance, but later evolved into propagating religious superiority and domination."

The vast majority of Muslims have a compassionate outlook, however, Islam itself contains a finalized, Medinan-era legacy of intolerance and bloodshed. This is no doubt and beyond sectarian or opinionated views.

a reply to: chewiI'm not religious and never said i was so i don't know what your assuming. Also you think i live in a box i know about priest and their child molesting.. all I'm saying its not religion that makes you do horrific things either you know whats wrong and whats right the world is full of sick animals.

a reply to: Sahabi
I'm sorry, Sahabi, on one side, you say that Islam has many interpretations and is based on a wide spectrum of traditions and texts, and then on the other side you say that no, the "True Islam" (or whatever) is actually all intolerance and bloodshed. You can't have it both ways.

On one side you say that Islam has many interpretations and understandings, and then on the other side you say "No, abrogation is a thing that not only exists, but is so all pervasive that and total in its coverage that SO MANY verses have been cancelled so as to make it that Islam is finalised as a religion of intolerance and bloodshed". You can't have it both ways.

(Hopefully) Nobody here denies that the majority of Muslims are just humans, not intrinsically evil. That isn't even the topic here. The topic is about the religion of Islam, which as you said, as with any ideology, really, has many varying interpretations throughout the ages, although afterwards you said it was finalised into intolerance and bloodshed , because only your interpretation of Islam (a religion you no longer even follow) is the correct one.

Abrogation may be a valid concept to the majority of Islamic scholars, but it certainly isn't to the extent you wish it to be, with as I said, right from the beginnings of Islam to now, there being people who said that there is no abrogation, or there are only 5 verses that were abrogated, there were only 12, there were 20, there were 70, there were 250, there were over 600, etc.

MOST IMPORTANTLY TO NOTE, of course, is that no modern scholarship (i.e. not based solely on 10th century scholarship) accepts any of the numbers in the higher range (as would be required if one mindlessly tried to cancel out all the verses that supposedly contradict the "sword verse" by looking at them in out of context comparisons). And since we're talking about Islamic Scholarship rather than Islamic Scripture, a 10th century scholar's opinion has no superiority to a modern one (or one from the salaf or sahabi, who also didn't accept such abrogations, as I have shown from hadith, which honestly, should be the authoritative text rather than some 10th Century scholar).

But since your entire narrative is built on this idea, you can't help but take it as gospel, so all this attempt at discussion with you is probably futile, and you'll likely just show up in the next thread that someone authors about Islam and peace, telling muslims that their peaceful interpretation of Islam is wrong, with your divisive "No, but all the peaceful verses are abrogated" narrative. No worries, I'll show up right after pointing out that that is not true.

Pity so many threads are going to be derailed, though...

a reply to: babloyi

The interpretation of Qur'an is what causes ideological differing. We have moved beyond ideological interpretations by viewing actual historic events.

If you do not agree with the violent expansionism of the Qur'an's evolution,.... then how do you reconcile the preemptive/offensive military campaigns and assassination commands of Muhammad during the Medinan period that were ordered due to rumor, paranoia, affiliation, or unpaid tributes? How do you explain the military campaigns of Muhammad's immediate successors that were waged against Islamic apostates and non-believers who were trying to practice "no compulsion of religion"?