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

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

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.

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.

Maybe you fail to see the religious superiority of the "Farewell Sermon" because you do not understand what "Taqwa" means.

This is what Muhammad said;

"All of mankind is from Adam and Eve. An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor does a non-Arab have any superiority over an Arab; white has no superiority over black, nor does a black have any superiority over white; None have superiority over another except by "Taqwa." Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood."

"Taqwa" means "God fearing, Fear of displeasing/disobeying Allah, and Islamic piety through mindfulness and obedience of Allah."

Taqwa is not a simple word that means "piety." Taqwa is piety for the sake of Allah, not for the sake of simply being good for goodness's sake. This is clearly an Islamic concept. To obey Allah is to obey the Qur'an. To disobey Allah and the Qur'an is to be in disbelief.

Although Muhammad was proclaiming racial equality (which was a good thing), he was also propagating "Taqwa" as a factor of superiority. And to have Taqwa is to be obedient and mindful of Allah, which would make one a Muslim. Therefore, Muhammad was proclaiming Islamic religious superiority as the only factor of division of mankind.

"All of mankind is from Adam and Eve.... The only superiority is Taqwa (piety for Allah's sake)... and Muslims are one brotherhood."

Sounds like religious superiority and separation to me!!!

reply to post by babloyi

For example, for all your quoting of salafists and their definitions of words

But babloyi, according to the Sahih (authentic) sources of Muhammad al-Bukhari, Imam Muslim, and Muhammad ibn `Isa at-Tirmidhi, Allah’s prophet Muhammad said;

”The best of mankind is my generation (sahaba), then those who follow them (tabi’un), and then those who follow them (tabi’ al-tabi’in).”

It is your very prophet who said to follow the salaf, so why do you speak so condescending about your own prophet’s command?



As you may know, the language of the Qur'an is not the same Arabic that is spoken today. To try a direct translation based upon today's modern Arabic will not suffice for an accurate understanding of the Qur’an. In such matters, it is crucial to turn first towards Allah and his Qur'an, and then to Muhammad, and then after this to his companions (sahaba), and then the generations (salaf) immediately after Muhammad's time (Tabi'un and Tabi' al-Tabi'in). This is the foundation that many Islamic scholars follow from a variety and multitude of mad’dhabs (schools of thought), sects, and ideologies.

Additionally, the "salafi" scholars I have cited were not of the modern "Salafi Sect” of today. They were of traditionally accepted madh'habs (schools of thought), while simply following the methodology of understanding from descending authority starting with Allah, then Muhammad, then the sahaba (Muhammad’s companions), and then the salaf (righteous predecessors). The modern Salafi sects did not break from traditional mad’dhabs (schools of thought) until after the death of Imam Wahab and the teachings of Sayyid Qutb.

What do you prefer? To turn to modern scholars instead of earlier (salaf) scholars? To rely upon your own personal interpretation (tafsir) and extreme lay-understanding of medieval Arabic? To turn to online sources?

Regardless, you DO rely upon scholars for every single Hadith (sayings, actions, and traditions of Muhammad) and every single seerah (biography) that you research, study, or reference. Without exception, all hadith and seerah comes from early Muslims and early scholars.

Furthermore, unless you have a Masters or Doctoral in Medieval Arabic, Modern Arabic, and Arabic Poetry, you are relying on scholars for your translations and understandings of the Qur’an.

I'm sorry you don't put much emphasis into etymological research and the study of the definitions of words. You are losing out!





Here are the sources I referenced in this thread, NONE of which belonging to the modern Salafi sect:

• Ismail ibn Kathir was an 8th Century scholar of the Shafi'i madh'hab.

• Abu Dawood was a 9th Century Persian scholar of no denomination.

• Ali ibn Ahmad al-Wahidi was an 11th Century scholar, and foremost founder of the study of "Asab al-Nuzul", which is the context and circumstances surrounding each verse of the Qur'an.

• Ibn Qayyim al-Jawaziyyah was 13th Century scholar of the Hanbali madh'hab.

• Muhammad ibn Abd' al-Wahab was a 18th Century scholar of the Hanbali madh'hab

To ignore and belittle the accurate etymology, root, and definition I have presented regarding "Taghut" would be to deny the etymological root of "Islam," "Muslim," and "Salaam" stemming from "S-L-M"
(س ل م‎ ).

In Arabic, it is vitally important to understand the root words of compound words in order to gain the full and complete understanding of words. It is foolish and uneducated to seek only a one-word translation of Arabic words. You lose out on the complete meaning.

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."

reply to post by Kgnow

Although Muhammad was proclaiming racial equality (which was a good thing), he was also propagating "Taqwa" as a factor of superiority. And to have Taqwa is to be obedient and mindful of Allah, which would make one a Muslim. Therefore, Muhammad was proclaiming Islamic religious superiority as the only factor of division of mankind. "All of mankind is from Adam and Eve.... The only superiority is Taqwa (piety for Allah's sake)... and Muslims are one brotherhood." Sounds like religious superiority and separation to me!!!

what if Muhammad pbuh in that sentence was talking about just muslims and the only superiority among muslims is the level of "taqwa". Taqwa again is an intangible idea related to the heart and only God can know who is doing a good act due to taqwa and who is doing it to show off to get praised by people.
Taqwa also means "to protect oneself from something that can harm"
if i am walking barefoot on a path and i see thorns scattered around and i cautiously avoid stepping on them, i am excercising "taqwa"

also in the religious sense "taqwa" can be extended to people of the book as they also are conscious of God and do good deeds.
But how do you assume that "taqwa" is a measuring stick to "judge" OTHERS? And how do you suggest measuring it? Its more of a self examination thing, no?

The quantification and measuring of taqwa would be required to feel superior than someone else but a person who really has taqwa will never feel superior, on the contrary he/she would be more humble. Right?
You do know what takabbur is? Same root as Akbar as in Allah hu Akbar. In simple english the feeling of being superior/greater.
Hope you also know the hadith that a person having a grain of takabbur would not enter Paradise.

In conclusion a person having "taqwa" will not try to judge others rather just improve himself/herself and only Allah knows how much taqwa a person has in the heart.

So your stand that taqwa promotes religious superiority or seperation is actually false. Its the opposite thats true. Taqwa makes a person humble and look at others as equally God's creation like the story of Prophet Abraham pbuh shows

Once he invited a man for food and while eating, the man declared that he does not believe in God and Abraham pbuh got angry and refused to feed him and kicked hlm out and God rebuked him that how can he refuse him food while God is providing that atheist sustenance all this time even when he does not believe in Him.

reply to post by logical7

So your stand that taqwa promotes religious superiority or seperation is actually false. Its the opposite thats true. Taqwa makes a person humble and look at others as equally God's creation like the story of Prophet Abraham pbuh shows

It's not just Kgnow's "stand". It's the Jihadis' stand!! Kgnow is explaining to us HOW the radical terrorist killer Muslims are being trained. You saying "it's false" has nothing to do with it.

It is what THEY believe that is the issue.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by logical7

 

So your stand that taqwa promotes religious superiority or seperation is actually false. Its the opposite thats true. Taqwa makes a person humble and look at others as equally God's creation like the story of Prophet Abraham pbuh shows

It's not just Kgnow's "stand". It's the Jihadis' stand!! Kgnow is explaining to us HOW the radical terrorist killer Muslims are being trained. You saying "it's false" has nothing to do with it.

It is what THEY believe that is the issue.

I even have strong objection against the use of the word "jihadi" or "mujahid(more correct)" being used for terrorists, i do know that they use(read as abuse) it just like war mongers use(abuse) the word "peace keepers" but anyways..

the jihadis are fighting for various reasons not because they think they are "superior" or have more "taqwa" that would be ridiculous.
Jihadis fight due to a perceived injustice or oppression being done to them or their people which in many cases is true however their way of fighting back is complete WRONG if it involves killing of innocent people just because their innocents were killed too.

Being religious does not equate to being a terrorist! Taqwa means to be more conscious of Allah and Allah does command to not bear injustice and oppression and fight till their is no oppression and no more and neither trangress in fighting because of personal hatred etc.

Jihadis are not fighting to conquer the world or something
even Osama bin Laden wanted what you want too, that USA butts out from Saudi and all other muslim countries.
Even the most dumb terrorist knows that its impossible to conquer US and other western countries by the number of people and arms they have

Originally posted by logical7.
Even the most dumb terrorist knows that its impossible to conquer US and other western countries by the number of people and arms they have

More stealth jihad under the doctrine of Taqiyyah. (The use of deceit to defend and promote Islam.) If you are trying to tell us that the terrorists don't want a calliphate ... that the muslim brotherhood doesn't want a calliphate ... etcetc ... I'm not buying it.

reply to post by babloyi

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.

Use your brain brother!!!!! As "Taghut" is an all-encompassing and generalized word directly stemming from its base root-word, it must be understood in a way to fit the context each time it is used. That's what all-encompassing and generalized means!

As I mentioned, if "Taghut" meant "idols," it would have said "idols." If Taghut meant "corrupt rulers," it would have said "corrupt rulers." If Taghut meant "evil," it would have said "evil." If Taghut meant "Satan," it would say "Satan." If Taghut meant "falsehoods," it would have said "falsehoods." If Taghut meant "going astray," it would have said "going astray." There are exact and specific words for all of these incorrect translations, but they were not used!!!

• Taghut means: "action of disbelief and disobedience to Allah"

"Action" is indicative of any action at all or any pursuit.

"Disbelief and disobedience" is indicative that the "action/pursuit" is a striving against Allah, al-Qur'an, and Islam.




I can't believe that you are so obtuse, to the point that I have to individually explain each instance of "Taghut" for you. It is a general and all-encompassing word based on its root-word! Figure out it's gramatical correctness based on the context!!! We are translating medieval Arabic into modern English, of course the grammar has to be contextualized at all times.

"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects "Taghut" (pursuits against Allah) and (instead) believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

Allah is the Protector of those who have faith: from the depths of darkness He will lead them forth into light. Of those who reject faith their patrons are the 'Taghut' (those who act against Allah): from light they will lead them forth into the depths of darkness. They will be companions of the fire, to dwell therein (Forever)."

- Qur'an, Suratul Baqarah, ayat 256 & 257 (2:256-257)

"Have you not seen those who were given a portion of the Scripture? They believe in Jibt and 'Taghut' (things that cause disbelief and disobedience to Allah) and say to the disbelievers that they are better guided as regards the way than the believers."

- Qur'an, Surat an-Nisa, ayah 51 (4:51)

"Have you not seen those who claim to have believed in what was revealed to you, [O Muhammad], and what was revealed before you? They wish to refer legislation to 'Taghut' (verdicts of those who act in disobedience to Allah), while they were commanded to reject it; and Satan wishes to lead them far astray."

- Qur'an, Surat an-Nisa, ayah 60 (4:60)

"Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah , and those who disbelieve fight in the cause of 'Taghut' (pursuits against Allah). So fight against the allies of Satan. Indeed, the plot of Satan has ever been weak."

- Qur'an, Surat an-Nisa, ayah 76 (4:76)

"Say, "Shall I inform you of [what is] worse than that as penalty from Allah ? [It is that of] those whom Allah has cursed and with whom He became angry and made of them apes and pigs and slaves of 'Taghut' (pursuits of disbelief and disobedience to Allah). Those are worse in position and further astray from the sound way."

- Qur'an, Suratul Ma'idah, ayah 60 (5:60)

"And We certainly sent into every nation a messenger, [saying], "Worship Allah and avoid 'Taghut' (that which causes disobedience and disbelief in Allah)." And among them were those whom Allah guided, and among them were those upon whom error was [deservedly] decreed. So proceed through the earth and observe how was the end of the deniers."

- Qur'an, Surat an-Nahl, ayah 36 (16:36)

"But those who have avoided 'Taghut' (that which causes disbelief and disobedience to Allah), lest they worship it, and turned back to Allah - for them are good tidings. So give good tidings to My servants"

- Qur'an, Surat az-Zumar, ayah 17 (39:17)

I have provided you with etymological proofs, and the understandings of early scholars who were fluent in Qur'anic medieval Arabic. You only provide your own personal understanding and your own personal translation.

It is obvious and apparent that you do not have a proper understanding, comprehension, nor proper utilization of medieval Arabic.

reply to post by wildtimes


also try and find the newspaper articles from US at the time of Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and you'l see how the "mujahideen" (taliban and even Osama) were praised as "freedom fighters"

and now they are terrorists! When they are doing the same thing, that is, fighting foreign invasion.
Does a person gets a label of freedom fighter or terrorist depending on his relation with US and its interests??
And now the same is being done in Syria. Free Syrian Army, ya right!!

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by logical7.
Even the most dumb terrorist knows that its impossible to conquer US and other western countries by the number of people and arms they have

More stealth jihad under the doctrine of Taqiyyah. (The use of deceit to defend and promote Islam.) If you are trying to tell us that the terrorists don't want a calliphate ... that the muslim brotherhood doesn't want a calliphate ... etcetc ... I'm not buying it.

Wildtimes here supports Khilafah. Is she a stealth jihadist??

reply to post by logical7

what if Muhammad pbuh in that sentence was talking about just muslims

Muhammad was not talking about only Muslims, because he starts the idea with "All of mankind".

Taqwa also means "to protect oneself from something that can harm"

No it does not! (ت + ق + ي) T-Q-Y is the base root-word of "Taqwa".

A separate derivation of the root "T-Q-Y" being the word اتقى (ittaqa) means "to protect one's self"

"Taqwa" means "God fearing, Fear of displeasing/disobeying Allah, and Islamic piety through mindfulness and obedience of Allah."


Now, the way we tie-in the root word is to say, in striving for Islamic piety for the sake of Allah, one must "cover or protect" themselves from sin and actions/words that are displeasing to Allah.


It is obvious and apparent that you do not have a proper understanding, comprehension, nor proper utilization of medieval Arabic.

reply to post by logical7


The rebels are what evolved after the "Arab Spring" uprisings. I read an article this morning explaining what the 'Arab Spring' was all about.

The Key to Understanding the 'Arab Spring'

While it was portrayed as "youth wanting more freedom" by the press, that was inaccurate. It was about youth wanting to get AWAY from "I am Arab" to "I am Muslim".

The United States has been unable to develop a clear national policy about the Arab Spring largely because Washington does not fully understand what’s happening in the Middle East.

The term, “Arab Spring” is itself misleading. The changes over the past 20 months have produced a fundamental transformation of the region – but not in the way most outside observers anticipated: They reflect the replacement of the dominant Arab national identity by a more Islamic identity.

This change has been evolving for more than 40 years and did not begin in January 2011 with the demonstrations across the Middle East.

The Middle East today is less Arab and more Muslim. It was clear from the start of last year’s protests that the successor governments would be less Arab nationalist and secular, and more Islamic.

And that is what we all need to know to understand this. The Middle East is collectively going from the established Westernized, secular model that developed after WW2, and allowed for trade and relaxing of tensions so that both sides could prosper. It would give the people the opportunity to join the "Developed countries" in economic development. And it did.

And now the 'youthful minority' kicked up a fuss, and started revolting against that more secular model, insisting on more focus on Muslim identity rather than partcipation in the global trade that was enriching everyone who joined in.

The fabric of Middle Eastern society has fundamentally changed. Being Muslim has replaced being Arab as the primary identifying factor. The consequences are profound.

Minorities, which had prospered by emphasizing their common Arab identity, now face a very worrisome future. Schismatic Muslim sects – Shia, Druze, Alawites and others – are unlikely to fare well under Sunni Muslim-dominated governments. Secularists are also likely to suffer.

Understanding the dogged determination of the supporters of the Assad government in Syria, for example, is impossible unless you factor in the fear that minorities and secularists have of a Sunni Muslim government.

Are you paying attention?

During the 1950s and 1960s, Arab nationalists achieved power in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Tunisia, Algeria and Yemen, and exerted great influence elsewhere. By the mid-1960s, a majority of Middle Easterners answered the question: “Who are you?” with: “I am an Arab.”

Not everyone, however, accepted this Arab nationalist approach. Some asserted the best path was not mimicking the West, but rather being true to their Islamic values. Arab fortunes had waned, these critics argued, not because they were not enough like the West, but because they had lost sight of their own values. This view was held by only a minority – but always had a significant following.

Following the Arab nationalist armies’ humiliating defeat by Israel in 1967, public opinion began to move more strongly against the Arab nationalist movements. Their approach and philosophy lost appeal. Despotic and sclerotic governments further discredited the cause.

And that defeat by Israel, in 1967, which humiliated the Arabs, is what STARTED Osama bin Laden and his Western-educated pal Zawahiri on the road to 9/11. All of your life, logical7, this has been building. Please try to understand how alarming it has been to watch the stability that had grown in the aftermath of WW2, and acknowledge that you were born DECADES AFTER it had already started.

So, you are influenced by what you see now, and what you've been taught, and perhaps not willing to reach an unbiased view of things. And this is not a "dig" at your age. It is a request for you to look into the deeper history and understand WHY being "Muslim" now has become more important than being "Arab" and enjoying the GOOD PARTS of Western theory.

The article points out that while the Western model worked for the West, the M.E. was not ready for it. It was like sending a 6th grader to college or making a freshman a tenured professor without the necessary experience and accumulated knowledge.

reply to post by logical7

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by logical7.
Even the most dumb terrorist knows that its impossible to conquer US and other western countries by the number of people and arms they have

More stealth jihad under the doctrine of Taqiyyah. (The use of deceit to defend and promote Islam.) If you are trying to tell us that the terrorists don't want a calliphate ... that the muslim brotherhood doesn't want a calliphate ... etcetc ... I'm not buying it.

Wildtimes here supports Khilafah. Is she a stealth jihadist??

Only based on one sentence that you wrote in a post weeks ago.
I don't even remember what it IS now - will you kindly repeat for me what it is you now claim I "support", when all I said was that, based on how you explaiined it, it made sense to me.

HOW DARE YOU decide what I "support" and link me to something awful!!!

That is just downright underhanded, unfair, and BLATANTLY slandering me.

You are really starting to piss me off now.

DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME, EVER! IS THAT CLEAR, logical7 ??!!!!!!!!!!!!

NOT EVER.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

reply to post by babloyi

.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.

maes2 weaker Hadith is preventing forceful conversion to Islam.

The stronger hadiths that I provided prevent the forceful conversion to Judaism.

The Ansar (Helpers) were from Jewish tribes before Muhammad became ruler of Medina. Upon Muhammad's arrival, the Jewish converts to Islam became known as the Ansar (Helpers).

An Ansari baby (Now Muslim, former Jewish Tribe) was being raised by Banu Nadir (Jewish Tribe). The Ansari woman threatened to forsake her new religion of Islam in favor of raising her baby as a Jew if it survived.

That's what the more authentic Hadith is saying. How did you mix that one up?

reply to post by logical7

More Taqiyyah deflection. Again ... you are trying to sell us that the terrorists and the muslim brotherhood and the rest don't want a calliphate and don't think they are working towards one? That's absurd. Of course they are. We aren't buying what you are selling.

You certainly are calling for a calliphate. You and your calls for Sharia.
Everyone suffers under Sharia.

reply to post by Kgnow

As "Taghut" is an all-encompassing and generalized word directly stemming from its base root-word, it must be understood in a way to fit the context each time it is used. That's what all- encompassing and generalized means!

whats the whole debate on "taghut" all about? Whats ur point?

If Islam operates on the concepts of "peace" and "no compulsion in religion," and is not seeking world dominance.....

Please explain why the combined End Time prophecies of Allah and Muhammad detail a world-wide battle of Muslims against non-Muslims, especially the genocide of Jews.... and how Imam Mahdi will come to rule the Islamic One World Government and Religion.


Muhammad's finalized and "perfected" form of Islam, illustrative of the several years leading up to his death, conquers and converts by the sword.

If Islam's goal was freedom of religion and peace, then surely such an oppressive and totalitarian eschatology would not exist, let alone jizyah tax, slavery, or jihad.

reply to post by Kgnow

I wish I could give you applause and a hundred stars. You nailed it.
There is no getting around what you just posted. It's all there.

reply to post by logical7

whats the whole debate on "taghut" all about? Whats ur point?

You've got to be kidding me!!!!!!

It is the very first point of the very first post of the OP. (1/3 posts).

The word "Taghut" used in the "no compulsion in religion" verse shows that the entire verse is bias towards belief in Allah.





Firstly, let us quote the verse according to its full and entire context:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects "Taghut" (pursuits against Allah) and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

Allah is the Protector of those who have faith: from the depths of darkness He will lead them forth into light. Of those who reject faith their patrons are the "Taghut" (those who act against Allah): from light they will lead them forth into the depths of darkness. They will be companions of the fire, to dwell therein (Forever)."

- Qur'an, Suratul Baqarah, ayat 256 & 257 (2:256-257)

• (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.

reply to post by Kgnow

Muhammad was not talking about only Muslims, because he starts the idea with "All of mankind".

as you say that taqwa means fear of God then wouldn't it apply to only the people who believe in God? Muslims and people of the book?

No it does not! (ﻱ + ﻕ + ﺕ) T-Q-Y is the base root-word of "Taqwa". A separate derivation of the root "T-Q-
Y" being the word ﻰﻘﺗﺍ (ittaqa) means
"to protect one's self" "Taqwa" means "God fearing, Fear of
displeasing/disobeying Allah, and
Islamic piety through mindfulness and
obedience of Allah." Now, the way we tie-in the root word
is to say, in striving for Islamic piety for
the sake of Allah, one must "cover or
protect" themselves from sin and
actions/words that are displeasing to
Allah.

so the word "Muttakin" means what according to you?
Someone who has "taqwa"? Or someone doing just "ittaqa"??

It is obvious and apparent that you do
not have a proper understanding,
comprehension, nor proper utilization
of medieval Arabic.

do you say that to everyone who does not agree with you because i have heard muslim scholars about tawqa and they say what i had said.