Does Islam preach forcible conversion?

[rogue06]

The singular naughty swine clued me into a great resource for information which has things like the Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World; The Cambridge History of Iran; The Cambridge History of Islam; Encyclopedia of Islam, New Edition; and Nativist Prophets of Early Islam Iran, as well as other works not exclusive to Islam.

[One Bad Pig]

So it appears that H_A did a brave Sir Robin and skedaddled out of town dragging her hindquarters and leaving a "skidmark" on her way out.

She won't be addressing any of the following

Or maybe more attempts to show that Jesus also commanded conversion by the sword that have been a regular laugh riot so far.

At the very least please find another source who will do something like your last one and insist that the notion that Islam was spread at the point of the sword was nothing but some myth that the Crusaders came up with.

Figured I'd refresh this thread to give H_A the opportunity to hurl insults in lieu of losing the argument here as well.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Figured I'd refresh this thread to give H_A the opportunity to hurl insults in lieu of losing the argument here as well.

You missed my reply [made to another thread] when rogue resurrected his whining comment.

I think we can safely accept that your level of "research" on the topic was superficial at best.

It beggars belief that you could not name a single author, title, nor offer a paraphrase of any remarks or observations from those numerous texts that you allegedly spent so much time reading. And that you "were not familiar with" Goldhizer also indicates your research was less than detailed.

[rogue06]

You missed my reply [made to another thread] when rogue resurrected his whining comment.

Meanwhile, back on earth, I've given you numerous references including authors and works which you summarily dismissed as out of context snippets, but as OBP, pointed out, given how you have declared that everything I listed is readily available online, you should have no trouble showing how I took these things out of context.

But for some funny reason, you elected to run off instead.

Strange how that worked out.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Meanwhile, back on earth, I've given you numerous references including authors and works which you summarily dismissed as out of context snippets, but as OBP, pointed out, given how you have declared that everything I listed is readily available online, you should have no trouble showing how I took these things out of context.

But for some funny reason, you elected to run off instead.

Strange how that worked out.

As I pointed out, the names Donner, Crane, Goldhizer, Burton, Hodgson, and Wansbrough were self evidently unknown to you. Coupled with that, your inability to call to mind a single title, author, or comment from those numerous works you allegedly read in a university library, made it glaringly obvious precisely how far your "research" on this topic actually went.

Internet Googling is another matter.

[rogue06]

As I pointed out, the names Donner, Crane, Goldhizer, Burton, Hodgson, and Wansbrough were self evidently unknown to you. Coupled with that, your inability to call to mind a single title, author, or comment from those numerous works you allegedly read in a university library, made it glaringly obvious precisely how far your "research" on this topic actually went.

Internet Googling is another matter.

Still waiting for you to demonstrate that what I wrote misrepresented things given you said that the sources are readily available online. But for some odd reason you continue to fail to do so.

Could it be that you know full good and well that your claim was codswallop?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Still waiting for you to demonstrate that what I wrote misrepresented things given you said that the sources are readily available online. But for some odd reason you continue to fail to do so.

Could it be that you know full good and well that your claim was codswallop?

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.

[tabibito]

The world today is not facing sixth century Islam.

[rogue06]

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.

You provided where you made the accusation, but what is patently lacking is your evidence on which you base your accusation.

Even a phony historian should realize that merely repeating the claim is not providing evidence.

Again, you claimed it was all easily available online so this should be a snap

So...

Still waiting smiley waiting2.gif

[rogue06]

The world today is not facing sixth century Islam.

When groups like Boko Haram are forcibly converting its more likely at the point of an assault rifle rather than a sword.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You provided where you made the accusation, but what is patently lacking is your evidence on which you base your accusation.

Even a phony historian should realize that merely repeating the claim is not providing evidence.

Again, you claimed it was all easily available online so this should be a snap

So...

Still waiting smiley waiting2.gif

I pointed out that cherry picking quotes signifies nothing of import. These things have to be put into their historical context. However, that is clearly far beyond your capabilities. Easy answers for complex issues is your MO.

[eider]

After the following exchange in another thread

Due to space restrictions I'll put the last one in the next post

Due to time restrictions I read a few of your first lines, and then resorted to Wiki for a straight answer, thus:-

Islamic law prohibits forced conversion, following the Quranic principle that there is "no compulsion in religion" (Quran 2:256).^[49][50][51] However, episodes of forced conversions have occurred in the history of Islam.

....so while the Quran offers the principle of 'no compulsion' and History offers examples of force applied......... (all a bit like Christianity! )..... let's look at a single Islamic country for some guidance.

The Shiite Islamic leaders of Iran allow Christians and Jews to follow their own religions, as long as they do not interfere with Islam, and a seat exists in the government auditorium for each of those religiions.
No seat exists for Bahai because the Iranian government identifies Bahai as a political (and not religious) organisation; but many Bahais live in Iran including about 30,000 around Tehran alone....... no forced conversion.

[tabibito]

Due to time restrictions I read a few of your first lines, and then resorted to Wiki for a straight answer, thus:-

Islamic law prohibits forced conversion, following the Quranic principle that there is "no compulsion in religion" (Quran 2:256).^[49][50][51] However, episodes of forced conversions have occurred in the history of Islam.

....so while the Quran offers the principle of 'no compulsion' and History offers examples of force applied......... (all a bit like Christianity! )..... let's look at a single Islamic country for some guidance.

The Shiite Islamic leaders of Iran allow Christians and Jews to follow their own religions, as long as they do not interfere with Islam, and a seat exists in the government auditorium for each of those religiions.
No seat exists for Bahai because the Iranian government identifies Bahai as a political (and not religious) organisation; but many Bahais live in Iran including about 30,000 around Tehran alone....... no forced conversion.

Shias make up the majority of the Muslim population in Iran (around 90%). World wide, they make up roughly 10% of the Islamic population. Sunnis make up the overwhelming majority of the Islamic population, and have conducted genocidal war against Shias.

Christian sects overwhelmingly don't engage in forced conversion in the here and now. The same cannot be said of Islam, except in the isolated case of a small minority sect.

Nice try, but no kewpie doll.

[rogue06]

I pointed out that cherry picking quotes signifies nothing of import. These things have to be put into their historical context. However, that is clearly far beyond your capabilities. Easy answers for complex issues is your MO.

So... more failure and excuse making.

[rogue06]

Due to time restrictions I read a few of your first lines, and then resorted to Wiki for a straight answer, thus:-

Islamic law prohibits forced conversion, following the Quranic principle that there is "no compulsion in religion" (Quran 2:256).^[49][50][51] However, episodes of forced conversions have occurred in the history of Islam.

....so while the Quran offers the principle of 'no compulsion' and History offers examples of force applied......... (all a bit like Christianity! )..... let's look at a single Islamic country for some guidance.

The Shiite Islamic leaders of Iran allow Christians and Jews to follow their own religions, as long as they do not interfere with Islam, and a seat exists in the government auditorium for each of those religiions.
No seat exists for Bahai because the Iranian government identifies Bahai as a political (and not religious) organisation; but many Bahais live in Iran including about 30,000 around Tehran alone....... no forced conversion.

I've been waiting for H_A to bring this up but she has yet to get that far, so congratulations on that.

You really need to look into the Islamic doctrine of abrogation (a.k.a., naskh), because the ayat prohibiting forced conversions was later nullified by those that require it. In fact, I'll do it for you...



The fact is that surah 2:256, like the other passages that called for peace and tolerance and always cited by Islamic apologists, 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 one of the last surahs in the Qur'an to be revealed 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, 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^[2], 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."

Likewise Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, who was the Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia and Imam of the Grand Mosque of Mecca, and 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."

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."

Similar expressions can be found in other respected Hadiths such as Abu Dawud, Al Muwatta and Ibn Majah as well, and 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^[3] 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.”

The fact is that the doctrine of abrogation has been nearly universally accepted in Islam. Probably the largest group to reject it is the Ahmadiyya or Ahmadiyah sect, founded in 1889, and concentrated primarily in Pakistan where it was founded. They steadfastly reject abrogation on the grounds that it undercuts the notion that the qur'an is free from errors. But they are considered far outside the mainstream by other Muslims, essentially heretics. For instance, in Pakistan members of this sect are even forbidden to call themselves Muslims and in Saudi Arabia they are officially banned from entering the country and from performing the Hajj to Mecca.

Some Islamic scholars declare that of the hundreds of mentions of abrogation in early and classical writings every single one speaks in favor of it although it appears that Abu Muslim al-Isfahani, a scholar who lived during the 9th and 10th centuries wasn't to happy with it for what appears to be the same reason as the Ahmadiyya sect.

The point is, that abrogation is an important doctrine within Islam. The 10th century Abu Muḥammad 'Ali ibn Aḥmad ibn Sa'id ibn Hazm (Ibn Hazm), who Encyclopaedia of Islam (regarded the standard reference work in the field of Islamic studies) refers to as one of the leading thinkers of the Muslim world, said that Muslims exegetes in general agreed that abrogation has clearly taken place in the qur’an.

And the revered Abu al-Kasim Hibat-Allah Ibn Salama argued in his An-Nasikh wal-Mansukh ("The Abrogator and the Abrogated," which cites in excruciating detail every verse that was overridden by various verses that were written later), anyone who studied the qur'an without having mastered the doctrine of abrogation would be "deficient" and has "deviated from the truth ... [and] turned away from Allah.” For him the abrogation must be taken seriously because it is essential to understanding the basics of Islam.

Likewise, the 13th century Iman, Abu 'Abdullah Al-Qurtubi, who's 20 volume commentary on the qur'an, Tafsir al-Qurtubi, is still considered authoritative today, explained "It is essential to understand the question of abrogation, and great benefits flow from such an understanding, which no scholar can dispense with, and no one can deny abrogation except the ignorant and the dull-headed."

Al-Qurtubi then relates an incident concerning Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law Ali ibn Abi Talib, the Fourth Caliph (although the Shia regard him as the first legitimate one), after seeing a man speaking to a crowd in a mosque. Ali asked the people there what he was doing and after being told that he was preaching retorted that he was doing nothing of the sort but merely claiming authority based upon his ancestry and demanding to be respected because of it. According to Al-Qurtubi, Ali then took the man aside and said "Do you know the injunctions which have been abrogated and those which have abrogated the earlier ones?" and when the man confessed that he did not, Ali threw him out of the mosque, ordering him never again preach there.

The only difference among Muslim scholars is not concerning abrogation's existence and importance but its scope -- how many changes there are there in the qur'an. Between the 8th and 11th centuries the number of verses that are considered to have been abrogated increased substantially. For example, the 8th century Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri a central figure among the early collectors of biographies of Muhammad mentions 42 abrogated ayah or verses, a little later al-Nahhas said the number was 138 but by the end of the 11th century scholars were putting the number in the low to mid 200s. The aforementioned Abu al-Kasim Hibat-Allah Ibn Salama said that 238 ayah had been abrogated and that out of 114 Surahs (chapters) of the qur'an, there are only 43 Surahs that were not affected by this concept.


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




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. Known primarily in the west for his attacks on Mickey Mouse, calling women who drive prostitutes and blaming the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami on immorality.

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

4. He is still so widely esteemed and revered that Jabhat al-Nusra (a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria) demolished his tomb a few years ago because they viewed it as sacrilegious.

My apologies if I got carried away in my attempt to be thorough. I can get that way once I dive into my notes