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

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


I completely agree with you. To start a thread attacking a religion - any religion - and not expect its adherents or more open minded individuals to interject with contrary information is simply an invitation to indulge in a hate-fest. Conducive to nothing and to no-one. In fact, it is positively dangerous.

It's particularly galling when bigoted attacks attempt to clothe themselves in respectability and pretended reason.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Oh please. If anything at all, someone should moderate the rash of anti-Muslim threads that have been popping up on ATS in the last couple of days (yours included). It looks like its open season on Islam here on ATS, and me and the other Muslims on here have been doing our best to address the issue as politely as we can... only to be called trolls engaging in off-topic behavior.

Gee, sk0rp. I wonder if maybe, just maybe, the Boston attacks coupled with a soldier being hacked to death in broad daylight has anything to do with the "renewed" worries of people who've been trying to give peaceful Muslims the benefit of the doubt.

You have been asked repeatedly to address the in-fighting among Muslims themselves and the dearth of "educated, real Muslims" being brought forward to police their own. You have failed to do that.

You need to realize that 9/11 changed the world altogether. Whoever is behind it, whether it was the US Government agencies or radical Muslim terrorists, it has caused this. People are WEARY of war, of conflict, of daily updates on more murder, rape, pillage, and brutality. We want the Muslims themselves to do something to convince us -- NOT by just insisting you are really peaceful people, but through actions and solution ideas.

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. We've been trying. The government has even pulled out the troops toward allowing the Muslim world to sort itself out.

Round up the "radicals" and put a stop to their ignorance and violence, and we'd be just peach-smoothy-cool with whipped cream and a cherry on top. Leave OFF the nuts, please.

reply to post by christina-66

You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

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)

Hey Kgnow!
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 alcohol).
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).

You state in your thread that it has nothing to do with other religions, so it is funny that the first post in your thread brings up Christianity, and the second one claims the superiority of Jesus (who according to the Bible will return in the last days, slaughter everyone who opposes him, steep the world in bloodshed so that every people will mourn, and then rule with an iron rod- no compulsion in religion sorta flew out the window there).

You state that your thread is about that specific verse, and the proto-historical context of that verse, and not "modern history" (because the history of muslims during Muhammad's that there were many non-muslims living among muslims for great periods of time with no conflict, and forced conversion was the (unislamic) exception, not the norm), yet the first post in the thread is about modern history.

Perhaps this is not specifically under the "intentions" of your thread (hence the separate smaller post), but it is interesting how the bigots crawl out of the woodwork and turn every thread about any aspect (good or bad,) of Islam, into a seething pit of hatred of islam and even muslims in general.

reply to post by wildtimes


Hey Scarlett (O'Hara) your genteel bigotry is quite evident. I, at least, know what I'm talking about in that respect.

I already commented on your own (equally divisive and hate filled thread) that no Muslim has ever attempted to convert me and that I just can't shake of the Jehovahs or the Mormons who have persistently attempted to save my soul over the past 30 years.

So - when was the last time a Muslim attempted to convert you or yours then?

reply to post by NeoMuslim

You're absolutely correct, having said that please pay respect to the second portion of my original post. Life of a Soul is about balance. As is the life of a Muslim, everything in due proportion. What separates The Qu 'ran from any other scripture is its ability to go into detail in the subjects of Science, Nature, Well -Being, War, and Politics without ever contradicting itself. It makes you strong!

at this conjunction we'd have to agree to disagree. When I look at Muslim countries there is lack of science, lack of well-being, plenty of war, etc

It was logic and reason the bred science. Not religion and scripture, even though some historical scientists did use the latter to find inspiration.

believe me, it makes you spiritually and physically stronger than those who do not believe. It holds you higher, a higher standard of living.

I also disagree with this. I just had a long discussion with a Sufi friend who is originally from Iraq and lived there over a decade ago. He told me something that is applicable to your quote above and very many muslims agree with, and that is that Islam breeds a group of people on a race to see who can be the holiest, though hardly anyone ever achieves that title, so it basically becomes a public display of holiness.

My whole argument is this. Does a certain philosophy/religion produce/crank out Enlightened Saints. Buddhism does, Eastern Orthodox Christianity still does in Mt. Athos (and a few scattered hermitages), Hinduism does, and Sufism also does. However the rest of the population doesn't get Enlightened and instead, divides/separates.

Now that whats the Qu 'ran does for me, if you would rather be Buddhist or read another scripture that's fine with me. However Islam is made tough because a society's way of thinking is much like the shape of an egg. While trying to break the egg using one hand would be difficult without tossing or smashing it. However if you where a ring and crush it using the same hand, it will break very easily. As that compared to society, when everyone is society is in full belief and a strong believer they are then they will be hard to crush or even alter their way of thinking

There is a verse in the new testament, and the sentiment is echoed in Buddhism, and many philosophies.
"The Letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life."

Your scriptures are words and that's it. Nothing more and they are relative. You see a book by God, a baby see's a rectangular box shaped object, an atheist sees man made religion.

It is the direct experience of God, of Enlightenment that count and unites us all. Not words and religions. Islam(without Sufism) is not applicable to a modern day Western society anymore aside from Sufism all by itself as the direct experiential branch.

Now does that mean I hate you? or anyone that isn't a believer? No absolutely not, that is your right. However, in this day and age, it would be hard for us to live in this type of society because I would not like you to infringe on my doctrine nor would you like me to infringe on your own doctrine. Thus the world we live in is very misguided.

There you said it above. If your doctrine is one where you get offended if someone infringes on it, then it is not applicable on a global stage where there will always be atheists, agnostics, and every other religion in the book. That's why only the Mystical branches are applicable because after experiencing God, you see everyone as Soul first and you do not look at labels and doctrine anymore, but everything is seen as One and Love

Self edited since the orignal post I'm responding to got hit with an off topic warning ...

ATTENTION~~~

ATS threads are not the place for bickering or attacks on the OP or other members. Off topic and derailinig posts are not allowed.
If there is a problem with a thread or post....
Contacting Staff: Alerts, Complaints

Otherwise, You are responsible for your own posts.
and We expect civility and decorum within all topics.

Failure tio abide by the T&C, will result in post removals and possible temporary Posting Bans.

Originally posted by NeoMuslim
What separates The Qu 'ran from any other scripture is its ability to go into detail in the subjects of Science, Nature, Well -Being, War, and Politics without ever contradicting itself.

What do you mean that the Qu'ran does't contradict itself? OF COURSE it contradicts itself.
And it contradicts known scientific fact. And it contradicts the historical first hand accounts
of the life of Jesus in scripture. And it has numerous historical and scientific errors.

Originally posted by Ghost375
What makes you so sure your religion is right, as opposed to theirs?

I didn't see the OP even claim to have a religion, let alone spout that his was the correct one. Did I miss that somewhere? Just because someone exposes the dark side of one religion doesn't mean that they believe in any of the others that are around.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
someone should moderate the rash of anti-Muslim threads that have been popping up on ATS in the last couple of days (yours included). It looks like its open season on Islam here on ATS,

There are PLENTY of threads on ATS that expose the b.s. in different christian denominations and in the Jewish faith/country etc etc. We are all free to expose what is in all the organized religions, including Islam, and out here on the internet there are no Imams to issue death fatwas against us for telling the truth.

Originally posted by buster2010
reply to post by Kgnow

 

As a result of Muhammad’s indiscriminate robbery of merchant caravans and his tyrannical attacks against Banu Qaynuga and Banu Nadir

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?

Jesus would have done, now whether you agree with either stance or not, this proves the intrinsic different between the respective "top" men

One claims to be a religion of peace, when the prophet was a warmonger who married a kid

Justify it and contextualise it, but this is it, and the ramifications are being felt to this very day, as the family of that poor soldier can attest

reply to post by FlyersFan

Since this thread seems to have already gone off the rails, I feel the need to point out (as I do in every thread you bring this up, and you seem to keep doing so) that

Originally posted by FlyersFan
And it contradicts the historical first hand accounts of the life of Jesus in scripture.

There are no historical first hand accounts of the life of Jesus.

Also,
reply to post by Credenceskynyrd

Originally posted by Credenceskynyrd
Jesus would have done, now whether you agree with either stance or not, this proves the intrinsic different between the respective "top" men

Interesting that you say that, considering (as I said in my previous post):

claims the superiority of Jesus (who according to the Bible will return in the last days, slaughter everyone who opposes him, steep the world in bloodshed so that every people will mourn, and then rule with an iron rod- no compulsion in religion sorta flew out the window there).

No compulsion in religion.

When I hear that I think of religion dictating the affairs of gov't and rules of society that have nothing to do with God or public safety and harmony.

This sounds good.

Think of how people were compelled during the Inquisition and Catholicism during the Dark Ages.

People lived in FEAR of the Christian church in much the same way that people live in fear of the Taliban in Afghanistan. This statement of the Koran makes sense to me.

And furthermore this scripture condemns the actions of the Taliban and Al-Quaeda ruling with an iron rod as being demonic and in opposition to scripture in the Koran because those two groups most assuredly, put compulsion in religion and fear in their own Islamic countrymen.

reply to post by Kgnow

Show us, in reference to historic and chronological order where this op is proven wrong or contradicted in Qur'an and/or Sunnah!

Well lets see your thread title is Islam's Lie: "There Is No Compulsion In Religion" (2:256)...
and then you say

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)

You post all that text and concluded with that bit about abrogation.

Well, then why do we have so many Islamic scholars still refer to the message of 2:256?
And what about all those other verses that acknowledge that Jews and Christians are people of the book? Have they been abrogated too? And no, I am not bringing up other religions, but quoting the Koran... in context



And then you falsely claim Mohammad commanded religious superiority in his final sermon...

Additionally, Muhammad's "Final Sermon" commands religious superiority and the separation of Muslims into "one brotherhood" separate from non-Muslims.

The final sermon was a message of brotherhood and unity addressed to Muslims. Mohammad doesn't even refer to non-Muslims in his final sermon.. and there was nothing in his final sermon that called for Muslims to forcefully convert non-Muslims. You have chosen to interpret the final sermon as a call to "religious superiority".

The Muslims being separate from non-Muslims applies only in theological matters, because there is absolutely no reason as to why should Muslims need to adopt the views of Christians or polytheists.

Your conclusion that Mohammad's final sermon commands "religious superiority", is dishonest and is ultimately YOUR twist on the matter and NOT what Mohammad actually said. People don't seem to realize that you have cunningly injected your own take on the final sermon amidst all those other the matter amiy managed posted all that text

@ christina-66
@ Ghost375
@ buster2010
@ polarwarrior
@ Telos
@ NeoMuslim
@ MrInquisitive
@ Sonny2
@ babloyi




The primary reason my religious beliefs were asked about in this tread is to create a launch-pad for "Personal and Character Attacks" against me instead of sticking to the OP topic and discussing its information. I am not fooled.


Islamophobia? Fear is a sign of ignorance; i.e., fear of that which we do not understand. I understand Islam and I fear not the religion.




For what it's worth, and although it bears no effect on the information presented in the op:

I am an ex-Muslim with absolutely no present religious associations or affiliations.

I have been taught under the academic tutelage of sheikhs and muftis. My Islamic fields of study include, but are not limited to:

• Medieval Arabic
• Modern Arabic
• Qur'an
• Tajweed (pronounciation of Qur'an)
• Qira'at (variant recitations/readings of Qur'an)
• Tafsir (interpretation of Qur'an)
• Sunnah/Hadith (words, actions, and traditions of Muhammad)
• Isnad (Chain of narration)
• Seerah (Biographical accounts of Muhammad)
• Fiqh (Islamic Jurisprudence)
• Math'hab (variant Islamic schools of thought)

Additionally, I have memorized large portions of the Qur'an through my former goal of becoming a hafiz (person who has memorized the entire Qur'an according to academic standards).





This is not a thread espousing hate or intolerance towards Muslims. Instead, this is a thread revealing the truth about Muhammad and Allah.

Muslims are my fellow humans, whom I view as brethren. All of mankind is one family. Period. The separating barriers of religion, race, nationality, culture, or ideology are completely superficial and counter-productive to unity.

Islam is the religion I seek to expose. It's believers are my beloved fellow humans.

• Perhaps people don't understand the difference between discussing an ideology versus attacking individual people. I'm here to discuss the religion of Islam, not attack the humans who follow it.

Peace.





P.S.
Time permitting, I will answer all rebuttals later this evening.

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)

Ever heard of the crusaders, psshhh

It matters not which religion is the most barbaric respective of their cultural influences, what matters is that every belief system has an agenda behind it and unfortunately in regards to a fundamental psychological condition of egotistical supremacy lies within the minds of most who lead is the reason we have such a separatist mindset on this planet. The best thing one can do is to pursue the inherit truths one claims with a respectful attitude towards others who are also on their own paths of enlightenment.

Good things

Originally posted by babloyi
There are no historical first hand accounts of the life of Jesus.

- The gospel of John. The 'beloved' Apostle.
- The gospel of Matthew. One of the Apostles.
- The gospel of Mark. One of the Seventy Disciples who also followed Jesus - but not as close as the apostles.
- Parts of the gospel of Luke were stories taken directly from Mary, the mother of Jesus.
- Epistles of Peter. The Chief Apostle who was placed in charge of Jesus church by Jesus.
- Epistles of John. One of the Apostles.
- Epistles of James. One of the Apostles.
- Epistle of Jude. Brother of James.

For every source you post that says these people didn't write those gospels and epistles, I can post five sources that say they did. These documents are from the time period of Jesus. The Qu'ran was made up 600 years later. Obviously the Qu'ran fabrications about Jesus can't be considered to be accurate.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
For every source you post that says these people didn't write those gospels and epistles, I can post five sources that say they did.

Sure you can. But how many of them would be from unbiased sources? Or non-christian sources? Or even from non-pastors or priests? I'm suuure your sources would be totally legit

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The Qu'ran was made up 600 years later. Obviously the Qu'ran fabrications about Jesus can't be considered to be accurate.

As I've said before, they'd be JUST as accurate as the Bible, especially considering your criteria. Interesting how you give the Bible as much of the benefit of the doubt as possible, while none of that for the Quran. "It feels right" is a totally fine PERSONAL reason for that, but it certainly doesn't have any scholarly authority.