Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Does Islam preach forcible conversion?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Does Islam preach forcible conversion?

    After the following exchange in another thread

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Islam does not preach forcible conversion. That Muslims have forcibly converted [as have Christians] is another matter.
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    So far from the truth that the phrase wronger than wrong springs to mind.

    I cover much of this in great detail in the rather short thread Is Islam inherently violent including how the earlier peaceful verses were abrogated (nullified) by surah 9:5 (Ayat al-Sayf or the Verse of the Sword) which specifically advocates for forced conversion (also HERE)

    And when the inviolable months1 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 zakāh, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allāh is Forgiving and Merciful.


    As well as such things as the practice of taqqiya/idtirar (lying to non-Muslims) and jihad (claims it isn't a call to Holy War are rubbish).

    If you wish to rehash any of it I would be more than happy to.

    H_A said she would consider "replying" if I reposted them in another thread.

    Since I'm not sure if she meant this exchange or my posts from the Is Islam inherently violent thread I figured I'd do both. Since I've already done the first here are some of the more pertinent posts of mine:


    The first (post #17) deals with the concept of abrogation wrt to the passages about peaceful co-existence in the qur'an be abrogated (effectively nullified and superseded) and is actually a reposting I wrote in 2015

    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Surah 256, like the other passages that called for peace and tolerance, were later abrogated (superseded or repealed) by surah 9:5 (Ayat al-Sayf or the Verse of the Sword).

    The doctrine of abrogation is stated in the Qur'an itself (2:106): "Such of our revelation as we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof." So a later statement that contradicts an earlier one is thought to be better and abrogates the earlier statement[1] -- and nearly all Muslim scholars agree that the Surah Bara'ah (the ninth) was the very last surah in the Qur'an that was revealed (although a few say it was al-Nasr or surah 110) meaning what is contained in it abrogates virtually everything else.

    This practice caused Muhammad's opponents to declare that he was a calumniator and didn't receive inspiration from God because he changed his mind whenever he wished. While Muslims have no problem with this, it is recognized in the Qur'an itself that others do: "And when we put one revelation in place of another revelation – and Allah knows best what he reveals – they say, 'Lo! Thou art but inventing'” (16:101).

    The great Spanish Muslim philosopher Muhyiddin Ibn 'Arabi (1165-1240) proclaimed that surah 9:5 abrogated something like 124 of the more tolerant and peaceful Quranian ayahs.

    The man who is regarded by many as the Muslim world's most respected Qur'an commentator, the revered Muslim expert on tafsir (Quranic exegesis) and faqīh (jurisprudence), Ismail ibn Kathir (c.1300-1373), declared that surah 9:5 "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term. ... No idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety since Surah Bara'ah [the ninth] was revealed." He adds that "Allah's pardon for the disbelievers was repealed. Abu Al-`Aliyah, Ar-Rabi` bin Anas, Qatadah and As-Suddi said similarly: "It [the pardon, or forgiveness] was abrogated by the Ayah [verse] of the sword."

    Today, the conservative Muhammad Saalih Al-Munajjid[3], who's fatawas (edicts or rulings) circulate throughout the Islamic world and are taken very seriously, in discussing surah 2:256 ("Let there be no compulsion in religion"), quoted Surahs 8:39, 9:29 along with 9:5 and declared "these and similar verses abrogate those saying there is no compulsion to become Muslim."

    So warfare against non-Muslims until they were converted or utterly oppressed was mandated by Muhammad.

    This is confirmed by what we read in the Hadiths including the ones venerated as being authoritative like the Sahih Muslim and Sahih al-Bukhari:
    Sahih Muslim 1:33: The Messenger of Allah said: "I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay zakat."

    Sahih al-Bukhari 2:24: "Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."

    Sahih al-Bukhari 8:387: "Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.'"

    Sahih al-Bukhari 60:80: "The Verse:--'You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.' means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam."

    Aside from the Hadiths, Ibn Ishaq (704-767/8, regarded as the earliest and most thorough of Islam's historians), who wrote the Sīrat Rasūl Allāh ("Life of the Messenger of God") relates that,

    "Then the apostle sent Khalid bin Walid… to the Banu al-Harith and ordered him to invite them to Islam three days before he attacked them. If they accepted then he was to accept it from them, and if they declined he was to fight them. So Khalid set out and came to them, and sent out riders in all directions inviting the people to Islam, saying, “If you accept Islam you will be safe.” So the men accepted Islam as they were invited."


    The text makes clear that the al-Harith[2] were only taught about Islam after their coerced "conversion," demonstrating that it was based on their fear of being slaughtered.

    Further, as Ibn Ishaq relates, when Abu Sufyan ibn Harb (the leader of the chief of the Banu Abd-Shams clan of the Quraish tribe of Mecca) went to seek peace with Muhammad, he was instead told (in Muhammad's presence): "Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the prophet of Allah before you lose your head."

    Likewise, Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (839–923), the well respected historian and exegete of the Qur'an, best known for his Qur'anic commentary Tafsir al-Tabari and his historical chronicle Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk ("History of the Prophets and Kings") recounts in volume 9 of his History

    "In this year, in the month of Rabi II (it is said in the month of Rabi’ I or in Jumada I), the Messenger of God sent Khalid ibn al-Walid with an army of four hundred to the Banu al-Harith ibn Ka’b.

    The Messenger of God sent Khalid ibn al-Walid in the month of Rabi II, or Jumada I, in the year 10/631 to the Balharith ibn Ka’b in Najran, and ordered him to invite them to Islam for three days before he fought them. If they should respond to him [with the acceptance of Islam], then he was to accept it from them, and to stay with them and teach them the Book of God, the sunnah of His prophet, and the requirements of Islam (ma’alim al-islam); if they should decline, then he was to fight them.

    Khalid departed and came to them, sending out riders in every direction inviting them to Islam and saying, “O people, accept Islam, and you will be safe.” So they embraced Islam and responded to his call. Khalid stayed with them, teaching them Islam, the Book of God, and the sunnah of His prophet."


    In volume 10 Tabari quotes Al-Hubab ibn al-Mundhir ibn Zayd (an advisor of Muhammad and who participated during in the meeting at saqifah during the Succession to Muhammad), who was supporting one group of Muslims in their quest for leadership after Muhammad's death, as saying:

    "For you are more deserving of this authority than they are, as it was by your swords that those who were not yet converted came to obey this religion."


    Finally, I'll cite Umdat as-Salik wa 'Uddat an-Nasik ("Reliance of the Traveler and Tools of the Worshiper"), one of the most highly respected works on Islamic theology and jurisprudence and based on the teachings of Abu Zakaria Muhiy ad-Din Yahya Ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi (or just Al-Nawawi -- 1233–1277)[4]. It has something to say about jihad and forced conversion that is relevant to this discussion:

    "Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word “mujahada”, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self, (nafs), which is why the Prophet said as he was returning from jihad, “We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.”

    The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus is such Koranic verses as:

    1) Fighting is prescribed for you [2:216]

    2) Slay them wherever you find them [4:89]

    3) Fight the idolaters utterly [9:36]

    and such Hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet said:

    “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah.”
    And the hadith reported by Muslim,

    “To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”"



    1. AFAICT, without exception, all Islamic religious scholars state that abrogation not only included the abolishing, dropping or replacing of a verse by another (often contradictory) verse, but it also includes abolishing a provision of a verse without eliminating its wording or text from the Qur'an. So the verses that were later repealed and replaced remain in the Qur'an but are no longer in effect

    2. Actually the Ghassanids with Al-Harith ibn Jabalah being their king.

    3. Popularly known for his attacks on Mickey Mouse, calling women who drive prostitutes and blaming the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami on immorality.

    4. He is still so widely esteemed and revered that Jabhat al-Nusra (a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria) demolished his tomb earlier this year because they viewed it as sacrilegious.
    The (post #22) second deals with Islam permitting deceit in any dealings with non-Muslims (such as telling us that Islam means Peace when in fact it really means Submission)

    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Muslims have a long record of being deceitful towards those they regard as kafir (unbelievers/infidels) and will tell them all sorts of nonsense like when they pretend that Islam means peace (false, it means "submission" or "surrender"), act bewildered about the concept of abrogation, lie about the meaning of jihad and tell the gullible that taqqiya or idtirar is an intra-Muslim insult (the former is the Shiite term while the later is the Sunni).

    Let's stick with the last one (taqqiya/idtirar) for a minute since it is pertinent to this discussion. It allows Muslims to lie about their religion.

    It started out as a way for Muslims to deny their faith in order to avoid persecution by lying (contrast to early Christian martyrs) and is mentioned in both the Qur'an and Hadiths[1], but it was rather quickly greatly expanded to include situations where no danger is involved but when it merely serves their interests with the justification that Muhammad regularly employed deception against infidels. A line in the most revered of the Hadiths, the Sahih al-Bukhari is usually cited in order to legitimize the practice, which states that Abu Darda, one of the companions of Muhammad and later governor of Syria reminded the faithful that they should "smile in the face of some people [infidels] although our hearts curse them."

    I suggest you look into what the Muslims say to each other and what they teach as opposed to the message that they present to non-Muslims. Over the years the Israelis have done a splendid job translating radio and TV broadcasts that they picked up that were meant for internal consumption. The differences between them and the messages provided to outsiders are stark and unsettling.

    Since I also mentioned lying about the meaning of jihad, let me also cover that as well.

    Farid Esack, a visiting Professor at Auburn Theological Seminary, even told those gullible enough to believe him that jihad has nothing to do with waging Holy War to spread Islam but instead was all about (are you ready for this?) "resisting apartheid or working for women's rights." Riiiiight. Jihad is all about "working for women's rights."

    Contrast that to what Ayatollah Khomeini who spoke on the subject of "Peace" and "Jihad," making it clear what the orthodox (Shiite) view is on the matter:

    Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of other [countries] so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world ... Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured [by the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean we should surrender to the enemy? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Quranic] psalms and Hadiths urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.


    Let's see, "Those who know nothing pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless." and "Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword." Seems pretty clear[2].

    But since he was a Shiite, let's throw in a Sunni, Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, who was the Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia and Imam of the Grand Mosque of Mecca, who delivered a sermon on the history of jihad as recorded by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan of the Islamic University of Medina, where he said that for Muslims, fighting (with weapons, that is) is "obligatory" against "all those who worship others along with Allah." That includes Christians and Jews. "The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fires of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures."

    I wrote more about this in a response to lao a few years back that seems germane


    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

    [...]

    Frankly, your assurances that "Muslims don't believe this. They don't believe 2:256 has been abrogated" will come as little comfort to the people living in the Sudan, of whom hundreds of thousands and up to a million have been murdered in recent years by Muslim jihadists intent on forcibly converting them. Likewise, similar things are happening in Indonesia with the Moluccas, as well as in Nigeria and west African countries. But they have nothing to fear because you said otherwise.

    But maybe there is an explanation aside from outright duplicity that explains the contradictory messages. Perhaps this observation from Bassam Tibi (a Muslim who until his retirement was Professor for International Relations at Göttingen University as well as well as having eighteen visiting professorships at top universities such as the University of California Berkeley and Princeton along with being a visiting senior fellow at Yale University) about how Muslims consider waging war to spread Islam to really be an act of peace might explain some of the different messages:

    "In this sense Muslims believe that expansion through war is not aggression but fulfillment of the Quranic command to spread Islam as a way to peace. The resort to force to disseminate Islam is not war ("harb"), a word that is only used to describe the use of force by non-Muslims.



    IOW, wars instigated by Muslims to spread Islam do not count as wars to Muslims (no matter how many people are killed), but are instead meritorious efforts to liberate the world from disbelief ("jahallyya") by its submission to Islam. Only submission brings peace, and it is the non-Muslim's failure to submit that "provokes" war! This philosophy is frighteningly reminiscent of the old Communist definition of peace: the ceasing of resistance toward communist expansion.

    [...]


    The verses urging peaceful co-existence were written when Islam was still weak and vulnerable and were later abrogated when they felt they were strong enough to wage jihad and forcibly convert others to their religion (and enslave or kill those who resisted). This is not some heretical belief only maintained by radical extremists as they assure non-Muslims (remember taqqiya/idtirar), but is a constant element of mainstream Islamic thought. For instance, this is explicitly taught by all four primary schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence: the Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki and Shafi'i schools.

    And FWIU the Shiites are even more hardline about it (see Khomeini's angry denunciation above)






    1.
    Source: Surah An-Nahl [16:106

    - Al-Qur'an al-Kareem]
    Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief... except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah, and for them is a great punishment;

    Source (Here as well)

    © Copyright Original Source



    Source: al-Sirah al-Halabiyyah


    It is narrated in al-Sirah al-Halabiyyah, v3, p61, that:

    After the conquest of the city of Khaybar by the Muslims, the Prophet (S) was approached by Hajaj Ibn `Aalat and told: "O Prophet of Allah: I have in Mecca some excess wealth and some relatives, and I would like to have them back; am I excused if I bad-mouth you (to escape persecution)?--The Prophet (S) excused him and said:

    "Say whatever you have to say."

    © Copyright Original Source



    2. It should be noted that Shaul Bakhash, an Iranian born Jew who is a noted Middle Eastern historian has said he doubts the authenticity of the quote but AFAICT has never given any reason for why he has doubts. It may be due to the fact that one of those who has cited it, Amir Taheri, does have a history of providing quotes that cannot be substantiated but FWIU he is not the only source (though the most frequently cited one).
    Post #29 is an addendum to the one above

    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Yet another example of taqqiya/idtirar took place after the beheading of Nicholas Berg by Islamic terrorists when Muslims emphatically insisted such actions had no precedent in the Qur'an or Islamic tradition. For instance, Imām Mohammed Adam El-Sheikh, co-founder and then chief cleric at the Dar Al Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia and now the head of the Islamic Judiciary Council of the Shari'ah Scholars' Association of North America, solemnly insisted that "Beheadings are not mentioned in the Qur'an at all."

    Similarly, Yvonne Haddad, a professor in the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding in the School of Foreign Service and the Department of History at Georgetown University, proclaimed "There is absolutely nothing in Islam that justifies cutting off a person's head."

    Likewise, Asma Afsaruddin, while an associate professor of Arabic and Islamic studies at the University of Notre Dame (now a professor in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures at Indiana University in Bloomington and chair of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy board of directors), declared "Just because a certain group claims it is behaving in accordance with Islamic conduct, that does not mean we should believe that. There is absolutely no religious imperative for this."

    Really?

    A quick look at the Qur'an reveals this to be nonsense. For instance, Surah Al-Anfal [8:12]

    [Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."


    Or more clearly stated in the Shakir translation (same source)

    When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.


    And there is also Surah Muhammad [47:4]

    So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them


    This time the Muhammad Sarwar translation is clearer

    If you encounter the disbelievers in a battle, strike-off their heads.


    What's more during the massacre of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe, which lived in northern Arabia at the present site of Medina, by a force led by Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq, Muhammads earliest biographer, wrote in his Sīratu Rasūli l-Lāh ("Life of the Messenger of God")

    The apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for [the men of Banu Qurayza] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches.


    Al-Tabarani, widely considered the most important hadith scholar of the 10th century states that between 600 to 900 were executed.

    So Mohammad himself over saw mass decapitations and puts the lie to the explanation sometimes offered of the quranic verses that it was only a reference to fighting in battle since what happened to the Jews was after they had surrendered.

    And a couple decades after Muhammad's death, when various factions started fighting (resulting in the Sunni-Shiite split), Muhammad's favorite grandson, Husayn ibn Ali, had his head chopped off after the battle of Karbala[1] in central Iraq (along with most of his family and companions, including Husayn's six month old son), at the behest of the caliph Yazid I. The head of Husayn and the 71 others also decapitated were first sent to Allah ibn Ziyad the Governor of Basra and Kufa at the latter location and subsequently Husayn's was placed upon a silver platter and sent to Yazid in Damascus, and finally sent to Cairo for inspection by the Governor of Egypt.

    Nope. No tradition of decapitations in Muslim tradition.

    And it is one that has continued into modern times and not just by terrorist groups. In 1992, the Iranian government sent a "specialist" to assassinate Shapour Bakhtiar, the shah's last prime minister, in Suresnes, a suburb of Paris. While most news reports simply state that he was killed with kitchen knives, he was decapitated with them. When the news broke, Hashemi Rafsanjani, then president of the Islamic Republic, publicly thanked Allah for having allowed "the severing of the head of the snake."





    1. Shiite Muslims commemorate the battle during a 10-day period of mourning often marked by such things as self-flagellation
    Due to space restrictions I'll put the last one in the next post

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

  • #2
    The final post from the thread, #26 (with an addition from #28 for clarity) regarding jihad and forcible conversion


    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    I'm sure that you can find a hand full of Muslim scholars who say one thing to non-Muslims that contradicts what the most preeminent and esteemed ones have been saying to their fellow Muslims for centuries.

    I've noted some of the games they play like insisting that jihad has nothing whatsoever to do with waging Holy War (The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), for one proclaims that jihad "does not mean holy war,"[1] but is as Farid Eseck, a visiting Professor at Auburn Theological Seminary declared, all about things like protecting women's rights (as they have a long and illustrious history of defending them ). Another example could be seen a couple years ago on the Muslim Brotherhood's websites put up in English as compared to the one for Arabic with completely different messages. In the former it was all about "peace" and "freedom" with a picture of a young girl in a white hijab whereas on the site in Arabic, the one for their fellow Muslims, this was nowhere to be seen but instead featured crossed swords with the words "Make Ready" underneath. "Make ready" is a reference to Surah Al-Anfal [8:60]:

    Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.


    Give the gullible infidels a message of peace and freedom while telling your fellow Muslims to prepare for battle against them.

    And another one was when of the supporters of the "Ground Zero Mosque" went to Egypt he delivered a speech where he mocked his and other's claims that it would be a symbol of religious unity and cooperation pretty much saying it was amazing that the idiot infidels had fallen for that line (I posted about this in a pre-crash thread and am looking for the info again).

    Further, often when they admit that jihad means Holy War they insist that is the "lesser" meaning and that "the greater Jihad" is all about an internal, spiritual struggle citing a passage from a hadith

    Upon his return from battle Muhammad said, "We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad (i.e. the struggle against the evil of one's soul).


    But what they don't say is that this is a later saying and not only is not found in the Hadiths considered sahih ("reliable")[2] but this source is considered at best suspect and generally viewed as spurious if not outright fraudulent (a Maudu (Fabricated) Hadith). The noted 11th century Hadith expert Imām al-Bayhaqi dismissed it saying it did not originate from Muhammad but from Ibraaheem bin Abee Ablah, a Taabi'ee, who is considered a weak source. Ibn Taymiyyah[3] rejected it outright saying

    This hadith has no source, nobody whomsoever in the field of Islamic Knowledge has narrated it. Jihad against the disbelievers is the most noble of actions, and moreover it is the most important action for the sake of mankind


    For more see Silsilah Ahaadeeth ad Da'ifah wal-Mawdu'ah written by 'Abdu l-Lah Ibnu Mani' Ar-Rooqi.

    Moreover, if Jihad primarily means inner struggle, then why does the Qur'an exempt the disabled (or injured) from jihad in Surah An-Nisa [4:95-96]? Obviously if it means inner struggle then the disabled would have no difficulty participating, but if jihad refers to Holy War (combat) then excusing them is perfectly understandable.

    The fact is that Muhammad calls the highest Jihad to be the spilling of blood fighting the unbelievers, not some inner struggle. This is attested to multiple times by the sahih Hadiths. For instance the two most trusted of them Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih al-Muslim both contain the following passage:

    I asked the Prophet, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and to fight for His Cause."


    They both also declare

    The Prophet said, "A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah's Cause in the forenoon or in the afternoon is better than the world and whatever is in it.


    As well as:

    Allah's Apostle said, "Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords."


    Sahih al-Bukhari reports the following and later reiterates it:

    Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."


    Sahih al-Muslim confirms this reporting the following and later reiterates it:

    It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that he heard the Messenger of Allah say: I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought. And when they do it, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.


    The Hadith Abu Dawud also confirms it stating:

    The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: I am commanded to fight with men till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is His servant and His Apostle, face our qiblah (direction of prayer), eat what we slaughter, and pray like us. When they do that, their life and property are unlawful for us except what is due to them. They will have the same rights as the Muslims have, and have the same responsibilities as the Muslims have.


    And the Sahih al-Muslim declares that:

    It has been reported on the authority of Jabir that a man said: Messenger of Allah, where shall I be if I am killed? He replied: In Paradise. The man threw away the dates he had in his hand and fought until he was killed (i. e. he did not wait until he could finish the dates).


    And while not a Hadith, Musnad Ahmed, a celebrated collection of hadith sayings, written by Imām Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the founder of the Hanbali school which is one of the four traditional Sunni Islamic schools of jurisprudence (fiqh) and called "True Shaykh of Islam," "Proof of the Faith," and "Seal of the Mujtahid Imams," as well as being described as "the most significant exponent of the traditionalist approach in Sunni Islam," contains the following:

    A man asked [the prophet]: "..and what is Jihad?" He replied: "You fight against the disbelievers when you meet them (on the battlefield)." He asked again: "What kind of Jihad is the highest?" He replied: "The person who is killed whilst spilling the last of his blood."


    So much for jihad as Holy War being the lesser jihad.

    I'll finish by citing someone more modern, Abul A'la Maududi, a Pakistani Muslim philosopher, jurist and imām, founder of the Jamaat-e-Islami, the then largest Islamic organisation in Asia and instrumental in the foundation of Pakistan, in his Al Jihad fil-Islam ("Jihad in Islam") (2006) in which he instructed followers to employ force in pursuit of a Shari'a-based order:

    These [Muslim] men who propagate religion are not mere preachers or missionaries, but the functionaries of God [so that they may be witnesses for the people], and it is their duty to wipe out oppression, mischief, strife, immorality, high handedness, and unlawful exploitation from the world by force of arms.


    And

    Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam, regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which nation assums the role of the standard-bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. Islam requires the earth -- not just a portion, but the whole planet. ... Towards this end, Islam wishes to press into service all forces which can bring about a revolution and a composite term for the use of all these forces is 'Jihad'. ... the objective of the Islamic 'jihād' is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of state rule.








    1. Likewise at the U.N. panel on "Islamophobia" toward the end of 2004, Ahmed Kamal Aboulmagd, an Egyptian judge and law professor at Cairo University, told the "infidels" there that the notion of Holy War doesn't exist in Islam: "In Islam and in Islamic literature there is no such thing as "a holy war." This is [a] Western invention that was attributed to us I don't know how and why and when." He was obviously counting on nobody actually reading the Qur'an or the Hadiths.

    2. Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Abu Dawud, al-Sughra, Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah with the first two having the highest status

    3. while unpopular during his time and the centuries after for his condemnation of the practice of ziyara (pilgrimages to tomb-shrines of family members or close associates of Muhammad) has become one of the most influential medieval writers in contemporary Islam



    Last edited by rogue06; 01-18-2023, 11:18 PM.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #3
      I expect a hand wave with the comment that you can't possibly be correct because you aren't conversant in ancient Arabic and never personally met Mohammad.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by alaskazimm View Post
        I expect a hand wave with the comment that you can't possibly be correct because you aren't conversant in ancient Arabic and never personally met Mohammad.
        Telling the truth about Islam would probably constitute hate speech and violate EU law.
        P1) If , then I win.

        P2)

        C) I win.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by alaskazimm View Post
          I expect a hand wave with the comment that you can't possibly be correct because you aren't conversant in ancient Arabic and never personally met Mohammad.
          Pretty much the response from all Islam apologists to anyone who doesn't submit to either Islam itself, or intersectional politics.

          Comment


          • #6
            rogue06

            Thank you for your posts.

            However, Alaskazimm is [to some extent] correct. Neither you nor I are experts in Islamic jurisprudence, neither of us are conversant with Arabic, and our understanding of the Qur'an will be limited; as we neither have any experience of growing up in an Islamic society, nor even an Islamic household, and we have no cognizance of the ways in which that text is interpreted.

            We should also remember that like Christianity, Islam is not a monolithic religion and has various branches, including a mystical sect; and as with Christianity not all members of the faith see "eye-to-eye" on various matters.

            I would also point out that your use of selective examples from a variety of Islamic sources in order to prove your contention amounts to cherry-picking. The origins of the religious system have to be viewed within the socio-historical context of Arabic tribal societies within the sixth century CE in which it emerged. A failure to do so renders other comments somewhat futile.

            However, if as is being contended, violence is intrinsic to, and a basic tenet of, Islam then an explanation needs to be provided to account for why, over the centuries, Muslims have succeeded in living peacefully within non-Muslim societies. Furthermore, if this is indeed a basic tenet of the religion, why are all Muslims today not engaged in such behaviours?




            "It ain't necessarily so
            The things that you're liable
            To read in the Bible
            It ain't necessarily so
            ."

            Sportin' Life
            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
              rogue06

              However, if as is being contended, violence is intrinsic to, and a basic tenet of, Islam then an explanation needs to be provided to account for why, over the centuries, Muslims have succeeded in living peacefully within non-Muslim societies. Furthermore, if this is indeed a basic tenet of the religion, why are all Muslims today not engaged in such behaviours?
              Uh They ARE engaged in such 'behaviours'. And have been all along. How do you think they spread among the middle east in the first place and in Africa? What do you suppose Sharia Law is about? Why do you think the Middle East is and has been a hotbed of war and conflict for the last 1400 years?

              The ones who are not, who live in countries like the USA and Europe and claim to be peaceful are heretics.


              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                Uh They ARE engaged in such 'behaviours'. And have been all along. How do you think they spread among the middle east in the first place and in Africa?
                Initially it included trade.

                Unlike Christianity that took over an existing empire, Islam had to make its own. And Christianity was forced on its society. From the late fourth century CE a version was the state religion and by the sixth century Christianity enforced conversion.

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                What do you suppose Sharia Law is about?
                Sharia is the religious code by which Muslims live. Not dissimilar to various law codes or religious teachings upheld by Jews and Christians.

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                Why do you think the Middle East is and has been a hotbed of war and conflict for the last 1400 years?
                That constitutes another thread.

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                The ones who are not, who live in countries like the USA and Europe and claim to be peaceful are heretics.
                Only according to certain other Muslims.

                Just as the actions in an Episcopalian church in the thread Jesus Come Soon [https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...sus-come-soon] were dismissed [even condemned] by various Christian individuals here:

                not Christ's Church.


                I do not consider the Piss-poor-copalians to be of the Christian faith.


                Well it was Episcopalian, they rejected the Gospel years ago.


                Those assemblies were completely honouring to God, which the Episcopal "church" has not done for a long time.


                They’ve successfully anathemized themselves.


                It is no secret that the Episcopalian Church in America has stepped up their slouching toward Gomorrah.


                A church that doesn't follow the teachings of Christ is hardly a Christian church any longer is it?


                Now transfer the content of those remarks [re not being true believers and not observing the faith correctly [including becoming apostate] to some of those fundamentalist Muslims commenting on the behaviours of more tolerant Muslims.

                Wherein lies the difference?
                Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 01-19-2023, 11:23 AM.
                "It ain't necessarily so
                The things that you're liable
                To read in the Bible
                It ain't necessarily so
                ."

                Sportin' Life
                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                  Initially it included trade.

                  Unlike Christianity that took over an existing empire, Islam had to make its own. And Christianity was forced on its society. From the late fourth century CE a version was the state religion and by the sixth century Christianity enforced conversion.

                  Sharia is the religious code by which Muslims live. Not dissimilar to various law codes or religious teachings upheld by Jews and Christians.

                  That constitutes another thread.



                  Only according to certain other Muslims.

                  Just as the actions in an Episcopalian church in the thread Jesus Come Soon [https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...sus-come-soon] were dismissed [even condemned] by various Christian individuals here:

                  not Christ's Church.


                  I do not consider the Piss-poor-copalians to be of the Christian faith.


                  Well it was Episcopalian, they rejected the Gospel years ago.


                  Those assemblies were completely honouring to God, which the Episcopal "church" has not done for a long time.


                  They’ve successfully anathemized themselves.


                  It is no secret that the Episcopalian Church in America has stepped up their slouching toward Gomorrah.


                  A church that doesn't follow the teachings of Christ is hardly a Christian church any longer is it?


                  Now transfer the content of those remarks [re not being true believers and not observing the faith correctly [including becoming apostate] to some of those fundamentalist Muslims commenting on the behaviours of more tolerant Muslims.

                  Wherein lies the difference?
                  You are showing your ignorance not only of Islam, but of history H_A.

                  As far as what is "true Islamic teaching" I would think that the head and leader of that religion would be the expert on that. How did Muhammad interpret his own writings? What did he do while he was alive? How did he spread Islam? History shows it was by the sword. Forced conversions, invasions, attacking caravans, sacking cities. So no matter how much you want to try to muddy the waters about which sect is right, we have the leader of the religion showing us what is true Islam: violence.


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                    You are showing your ignorance not only of Islam, but of history H_A.
                    In what respect given that you consider yourself to be more knowledgeable on Sharia and on history per se? The latter [in all its forms] being a huge discipline that fills vast sections of numerous libraries.

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                    As far as what is "true Islamic teaching" I would think that the head and leader of that religion would be the expert on that. How did Muhammad interpret his own writings? What did he do while he was alive? How did he spread Islam? History shows it was by the sword.
                    Not entirely

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    Forced conversions, invasions, attacking caravans, sacking cities.
                    Not dissimilar to Christianity then with forced conversions and invasions [including the sacking of cities]. Or the [often divinely sanctioned] Israelite massacres we find in the Hebrew texts.

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    So no matter how much you want to try to muddy the waters
                    I am not muddying any water.

                    There is no difference in the content of those quotes from Christians here condemning the Episcopalian church for not being of the true faith; and the condemnation of fundamentalist Muslims towards more tolerant Muslims whom they likewise consider are not of the true faith.

                    The only difference is that [so far] Christians who hold the views I quoted do not have untrammelled temporal power as do fundamentalist Muslims in various Muslim countries.

                    "It ain't necessarily so
                    The things that you're liable
                    To read in the Bible
                    It ain't necessarily so
                    ."

                    Sportin' Life
                    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                      In what respect given that you consider yourself to be more knowledgeable on Sharia and on history per se? The latter [in all its forms] being a huge discipline that fills vast sections of numerous libraries.

                      Not entirely

                      Not dissimilar to Christianity then with forced conversions and invasions [including the sacking of cities]. Or the [often divinely sanctioned] Israelite massacres we find in the Hebrew texts.
                      You would have to show Jesus forceably converting people in order to make a relevant comparison to Islam. Muhammad was not only the prophet who wrote the Quran, but the leader who went around converting by force. I think that puts the bow on the claim that Islam teaches violent conversion and that it the "True Islam" compared to modern splinters who try to claim Islam is peaceful and the Quran doesn't teach violent conversion.


                      I am not muddying any water.
                      Sure you are. You are trying to play a "whataboutism" game with respect to Christianity. But any Christian who tries to convert by force is not following the teachings of Christ, the actions of Christ, nor the bible. In stark contrast to Muhammad and Islam.

                      There is no difference in the content of those quotes from Christians here condemning the Episcopalian church for not being of the true faith; and the condemnation of fundamentalist Muslims towards more tolerant Muslims whom they likewise consider are not of the true faith.

                      The only difference is that [so far] Christians who hold the views I quoted do not have untrammelled temporal power as do fundamentalist Muslims in various Muslim countries.
                      More whataboutism. Even if you were correct (and you are not) how would Christians acting like you claim show that Islam does not teach violent conversion and has a history of such? This is just a flowery path you are trying to deflect upon. This thread is about Islam, not Christianity or Hinduism or any other religion. Stick to the topic.



                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by alaskazimm View Post
                        I expect a hand wave with the comment that you can't possibly be correct because you aren't conversant in ancient Arabic and never personally met Mohammad.
                        But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.



                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                          rogue06

                          Thank you for your posts.

                          However, Alaskazimm is [to some extent] correct. Neither you nor I are experts in Islamic jurisprudence, neither of us are conversant with Arabic, and our understanding of the Qur'an will be limited; as we neither have any experience of growing up in an Islamic society, nor even an Islamic household, and we have no cognizance of the ways in which that text is interpreted.
                          As the research I presented demonstrates, this is not only what is said and how it was presented according to, among others, experts in Islamic jurisprudence and what nobody could argue was insufficient knowledge of the qur'an (as well as the sahih hadiths) and how it is interpreted.

                          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                          We should also remember that like Christianity, Islam is not a monolithic religion and has various branches, including a mystical sect; and as with Christianity not all members of the faith see "eye-to-eye" on various matters.
                          Fair enough, but remember that I went to pains to present the views of both Sunnis and Shiites, who constitute well over 90% of Muslims[1]. Sufism represents a good majority of any other denominations/sects and it is very generous to assign even 5% of Muslims to them. So I think I fairly represented general Muslim views.

                          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                          I would also point out that your use of selective examples from a variety of Islamic sources in order to prove your contention amounts to cherry-picking. The origins of the religious system have to be viewed within the socio-historical context of Arabic tribal societies within the sixth century CE in which it emerged. A failure to do so renders other comments somewhat futile.
                          All of the sources I used are highly regarded and considered to represent both orthodox Sunni and Shiite (often both) views.

                          The rest of what you said is bollocks.

                          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                          However, if as is being contended, violence is intrinsic to, and a basic tenet of, Islam then an explanation needs to be provided to account for why, over the centuries, Muslims have succeeded in living peacefully within non-Muslim societies. Furthermore, if this is indeed a basic tenet of the religion, why are all Muslims today not engaged in such behaviours?
                          I could cite several studies showing that countries with majority Muslim populations are involved in the majority of armed conflicts (considerably more than Christians) taking place going back over several decades, but that only covers recently.

                          And basically history shows that when they are in a minority they loudly clamor for tolerance and acceptance, but as they gain in strength they start demanding things like Sharia courts be established to handle Muslim cases -- and not just civil. And if they gain sufficient control, Sharia Law gets expanded to everyone and any talk of tolerance and acceptance is long gone.

                          You can say that such behavior is part of the human condition, but in Islam it is enforced by the practice of taqqiya/idtirar (deliberate deception).


                          The over-reaching point of this is to demonstrate how, through the words of both Muhammad and Jesus, we are able to draw a sharp distinction between the critical core principles behind Christianity and Islam. This is significant because Muslims read his words and imitate his deeds resulting to a very different expression of faith that one would receive from the Gospel message (meaning the entire New Testament in this case).

                          Unlike Jesus, Muhammad was a man of war who said He that his god, Allah, had commanded him and his followers to take up arms, and nobody could call Muhammad a armchair general.

                          One of Muhammad’s most famous claims is that God commanded him to fight everyone until they convert and follow the ordinances of Islam. Absolutely NO one debates this. Multiple hadiths, including the sahih hadiths, record Muhammad as saying:

                          I have been ordered by God to fight with people till they bear testimony to the fact that there is no God but Allah and that Mohammed is his messenger, and that they establish prayer and pay Zakat (money). If they do it, their blood and their property are safe from me


                          This has always been taken to mean the waging of offensive wars against unbelievers in order to force them to convert and embrace Islam as individuals or communities. After all, this is exactly what Muhammad himself did. Muhammad exhorted his followers: "Invitation first (that is, call them first to embrace Islam). If they refuse, then war.”

                          IIRC, there are over 100 verses in the qur'an which exhort believers to wage jihad against unbelievers. One is Surah or Surat At-Tawbah (9:37):

                          O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, an evil refuge indeed


                          In Arabic "Strive hard" is "jahidi," which is a verbal form of the noun "jihad."

                          This can perhaps be seen more clearly in the Saheeh International translation which has it "O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them" and the Mufti Taqi Usmani translation, "O Prophet, carry out Jihād (struggle) against the disbelievers and hypocrites, and be strict with them."

                          And the striving here is clearly on the battlefield as can be seen in Surah Muhammad (47:4) in the qur'an among other places

                          When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly






                          1. "Of the total Muslim population, 10-13% are Shia Muslims and 87-90% are Sunni Muslims."
                          Last edited by rogue06; 01-19-2023, 06:10 PM.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            As the research I presented demonstrates, this is not only what is said and how it was presented according to, among others, experts in Islamic jurisprudence and what nobody could argue was insufficient knowledge of the qur'an (as well as the sahih hadiths) and how it is interpreted.
                            Providing uncontextualized quotes tells us nothing.


                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            Fair enough, but remember that I went to pains to present the views of both Sunnis and Shiites, who constitute well over 90% of Muslims[1]. Sufism represents a good majority of any other denominations/sects and it is very generous to assign even 5% of Muslims to them. So I think I fairly represented general Muslim views.
                            Rather like Protestants and Catholics not all Sunni and Shiite Muslims interpret their beliefs in exactly the same way. Your own thread Jesus Come Soon reflects that divergence within members of Protestantism. Your Protestant Christian attitude [and those of the Christians I quoted from that thread] are hardly commensurate with those of the Episcopalian church that formed the subject of that thread.

                            Yet you, and your fellow Christians who made those remarks, along with that Episcopalian church, are all Protestant Christians.

                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            The rest of what you said is bollocks.
                            That suggests you cannot defend your contention and so you resort to vulgarisms.

                            The simple fact is that if your contention is correct and forcible conversion and violence are central tenets to Islam, why are my Muslim neighbours, and indeed my Muslim friends not forcing me to convert [for the latter at the point of a kitchen knife]?

                            An interesting paper here: https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/pap...ed-conversions

                            The question of forced conversions to Islam in history is a cornerstone of the centuries-old “spread-by-the-sword” narrative that has been (and continues to be) used to demonize Islam and Muslims. However, many leading present-day historians have challenged this narrative. They recognize that there have been cases of forced conversion, but also that these were rare, exceptional, occurred in particular contexts, and in violation of the Qur’anic prohibition of this practice. This article provides a cursory perusal of some of the arguments that have been used to discredit this narrative and examines three cases of forced conversion to Islam in history: the spread of Islam in South Asia, the Ottomans’ devshirme system, and Imam Yahya’s “Orphans’ Decree” in Yemen.

                            The tremendous numerical success of what European Christendom regarded as a ‘wicked religion’ has confounded observers for centuries. The only conceivable answer, in the minds of many, was (and is) that Islam must have initially spread through its inherent “bestial cruelty,” as Peter the Venerable put it in the 12th century.2 From this perspective, the present-day size and growth of the Muslim community is a product of episodes of history during which Islam was “spread by the sword.”

                            A key “fact” of this spread-by-the-sword narrative is the notion of forced conversions of non-Muslims to Islam. This is part of a constellation of questionable “facts” that have been repurposed many times in history. Peter the Venerable, though he was generally an advocate for the academic study of Islam (for the purpose of refutation), penned his scathing words in the context of the Crusades. In later centuries, European colonizers (such as the British in India) attempted to convince their non-Muslim subjects of their own benevolence by comparing it to the cruelty―real or imagined―of earlier Muslim conquerors.3 Today, the Islamophobia industry’s association of Islam and Muslims with barbarity and terrorism can be neatly justified by presenting this as the latest episode of Islam being spread “by the sword.”4

                            Of course, this narrative is not entirely unfounded. There have been certain instances in history of Muslims disregarding Islamic teachings and behaving cruelly toward non-Muslims, including cases of forced conversion, just as members of other groups have committed acts of evil (e.g., the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition) that have contravened the principles of their own religion. Unscrupulous individuals and groups will seek to politically instrumentalize whatever ideology or faith they can, and every such event should be duly investigated and condemned. But to look at a cherry-picked selection of incidents and leap to the broad-sweeping, reductionist conclusion that Islam was “spread by the sword”―without analyzing the many variables shaping the course of events in each particular case―is a flagrant act of intellectual dishonesty and an obstacle to understanding and reconciliation.

                            This article briefly outlines some of the arguments that historians have used to challenge the spread-by-the-sword narrative and, in particular, the question of forced conversions to Islam in history.

                            The Positions of Historians

                            The notion of Islam being “spread by the sword” can be traced to the Crusades and remained a cornerstone of European Christians’ anti-Islam polemics for centuries. It was picked up in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by Orientalist scholars such as Sir William Muir,5 many of whom―as British colonial officials and/or active Christian missionaries―were in a position to benefit from the vilification of Islam to non-Muslim audiences (i.e., “divide et impera”). The Orientalists crystallized and legitimized pre-existing traditional oral history―or mythistory, to use William McNeill’s term6―and in doing so “translated [historical memory] from myths to facts with a rational scientific attitude.”7

                            However, even in the ranks of the Orientalists there were those, such as Sir Thomas Arnold and De Lacy O’Leary, who chopped away at the narrative of forced conversions to Islam. O’Leary wrote in 1923 that “the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.”8

                            The renowned historian Marshall Hodgson, in his pioneering work The Venture of Islam, articulated essentially the same position.9 More recently, Ira Lapidus wrote in A History of Islamic Societies that “European scholars believed that conversions to Islam were made at the point of the sword and that conquered peoples were given the choice of conversion or death. It is now apparent that conversion by force, while not unknown in Muslim countries, was, in fact, rare. Muslim conquerors ordinarily wished to dominate rather than convert, and most conversions to Islam were voluntary.”10

                            In addition to the historians cited throughout this article, Jamal Malik, Jonathan Berkey, and Kevin Barrett are some of the many other historians who have challenged and discredited the “spread-by-the-sword” narrative.11

                            [...]
                            Even in cases of Islamically-sanctioned war, Muslim armies were supposed to offer non-Muslims the choice of “conversion to Islam; payment of jizya and acceptance of dhimmistatus; or trying the fortunes of war. If the adversaries chose the last of these three and then lost, they faced expropriation, slavery, or even death. Even then, however, they must not be converted forcibly.”14

                            The second option has been derogatorily termed “dhimmitude” by Bat Ye’or.15 Ye’or and others have argued that the requirement of paying the jizya and holding dhimmi status was a form of “compulsion in religion.” Ye’or’s position has been challenged by eminent historians, including Bernard Lewis―who cannot be credibly accused of apologetic revisionism, given that his own views in other contexts are far from “Muslim-friendly”―and Chase Robinson. [...]

                            In the regions conquered by Muslims by 732 (i.e., in the first century after Prophet Muhammad ﷺ), Islam did not become a majority religion until 850-1050. Nearly all of Iran, for example, had been conquered by 705; however, empirical research by Richard Bulliet has shown that it was only in the mid-9th century that the Muslim population of Iran reached 50%, and it took nearly another century for that figure to hit 75%.24 As some historians have pointed out, “if forced conversion to Islam had been the impetus behind the conquests, they were a miserable failure.


                            You can read the rest for yourself. However, I consider some of the final comments to be most appropriate.

                            In fact, the underlying message of the discussion is precisely the opposite. We need to stop glossing over history by subscribing to shallow (and often demonizing) narratives such as “Islam was spread by the sword” or, for that matter, that classical Muslim societies were utopic or that the sword never played a role in the spread of Islam.50 All of these are myths, with the truth to be found somewhere in the messy gray area between them―a gray area that conscientious and truth-seeking people must roll up their sleeves to diligently explore.


                            In other words the whole history of Islam is [like any other religion or periods of history] complicated. And sweeping generalisations founded on selective quotes does not constitute an adequate appraisal. However, it does conform to more recent anti-Islamic attitudes [especially after 9/11 along with the rise of groups such as the Taliban, Boko Haram, Al Queda, and Daesh].
                            "It ain't necessarily so
                            The things that you're liable
                            To read in the Bible
                            It ain't necessarily so
                            ."

                            Sportin' Life
                            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                              Providing uncontextualized quotes tells us nothing.
                              Rather like Protestants and Catholics not all Sunni and Shiite Muslims interpret their beliefs in exactly the same way. Your own thread Jesus Come Soon reflects that divergence within members of Protestantism.
                              In other words the whole history of Islam is [like any other religion or periods of history] complicated. And sweeping generalisations founded on selective quotes does not constitute an adequate appraisal. However, it does conform to more recent anti-Islamic attitudes [especially after 9/11 along with the rise of groups such as the Taliban, Boko Haram, Al Queda, and Daesh].
                              Like it or not, the Taliban, Boko Haram, Al Queda, and Daesh and similar groups are the face of Islam. The Samaritan Jews might also find the "there was no convert or die" narrative a bit doubtful. It is true though that the history has been quite thoroughly embellished. For the most part, early in the piece, it was the Turkish (as in the region, not the nationality) contingent that conducted the "convert or die" programmes.
                              1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω
                              Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                              .
                              If Palm Sunday really was a Sunday, Christ was crucified on a Thursday (which could be adduced from the gospels anyway).

                              "The synoptic gospels claim that Jesus was crucified on the 15th day of Nisan and buried on the 14th day of Nisan:" Majority Consensus

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by rogue06, 01-18-2023, 11:09 PM
                              217 responses
                              1,177 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by eider, 01-17-2023, 02:14 AM
                              239 responses
                              950 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by eider, 01-13-2023, 04:39 AM
                              501 responses
                              2,066 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 01-07-2023, 01:32 PM
                              284 responses
                              1,400 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by Diogenes, 01-05-2023, 09:25 AM
                              57 responses
                              414 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X