Does Islam preach forcible conversion?

[Sparko]

Read in full the paper to which I linked in my reply to rogue06. https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/pap...ed-conversions

It provides references so you can try and find those other texts.

Argument by weblink is not allowed. Also I am sure you can find propoganda to support any notion you want to. That is not proof. That is simply someone's opinion. And definitely propaganda written by muslims to change history. At least try to find a neutral source.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Argument by weblink is not allowed. Also I am sure you can find propoganda to support any notion you want to. That is not proof. That is simply someone's opinion. And definitely propaganda written by muslims to change history. At least try to find a neutral source.

No it's a paper with references. Oh I see so all Muslims are part of a giant conspiracy?

I have already quoted sections from that paper but this one I will give you again - it is from the Conclusion.

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.

And why is opinion that goes against your preconceived biases "propaganda"?

[Sparko]

No it's a paper with references. Oh I see so all Muslims are part of a giant conspiracy?

I have already quoted sections from that paper but this one I will give you again - it is from the Conclusion.

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.

And why is opinion that goes against your preconceived biases "propaganda"?

It's an Islamic apologist site who's stated purpose is to promote Islam and as Rogue06 has already shown, lying to infidels is perfectly fine. Actual history shows that Muhammad raided caravans and took over entire regions using violence to spread Islam. It still goes on today! Just watch the news. Only when a minority in a country does Islam pretend to be peaceful. Once they become a majority they show their true colors. Sharia law comes in effect and anyone opposing Islam is imprisoned or worse. Submit or die. That is what Islam is all about.

[One Bad Pig]

It's an Islamic apologist site who's stated purpose is to promote Islam and as Rogue06 has already shown, lying to infidels is perfectly fine. Actual history shows that Muhammad raided caravans and took over entire regions using violence to spread Islam. It still goes on today! Just watch the news. Only when a minority in a country does Islam pretend to be peaceful. Once they become a majority they show their true colors. Sharia law comes in effect and anyone opposing Islam is imprisoned or worse. Submit or die. That is what Islam is all about.

Interesting that H_A will uncritically take the Muslim's word for it, but vigorously deconstructs any Christian point.

[Sparko]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim%E2%80%93Meccan_conflict

The early Muslim–Meccan conflict refer to a series of raids in which the Islamic prophet Muhammad and his companions participated. The raids were generally offensive^[1] and carried out to gather intelligence or seize the trade goods of caravans financed by the Quraysh. His followers were also impoverished.^[2] The raids were intended to harm the economy and in turn the offensive capabilities of Mecca by Muhammad. He also broke an Arab tradition of not attacking one's own kinsmen by raiding caravans.
...
According to William Montgomery Watt and the Muslim scholar Ibn Kathir, the Quran verse ^{[Quran 22:39][8][9][10]} was the earliest verse permitting Muslims to fight. However, he says there was a "disinclination" among the Muslims to follow the permission to fight, but they were given an incentive, after the Muslims were told that God prefers fighters to those who sit still and remain at home, and that for fighters there is a reward in paradise (Jannah)
...
It is mentioned in Ibn Hisham and Ibn Ishaq's biography of Muhammad (the earliest surviving biography of Muhammad from the 7th century), that for these caravan raids Muhammad gave permission to "plunder" the caravans of theirs enemies and seize their goods and property(s) and said:

Go forth against this caravan; it may be that God will grant you plunder [Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 95, translation by Folio Society]^[17]

The Muslim scholar Al-Waqidi also mentions in his Kitab al-Tarikh wa al-Maghazi ("Book of History and Campaigns") that Muhammad said: "This caravan of the Quraysh holds their wealth, and perhaps God will grant it to you as a plunder".^[
...
The fourth raid, known as the invasion of Waddan, was the first offensive in which Muhammad took part personally with 70, mostly Muhajir,troops.^[12] It is said that twelve months after moving to Medina, Muhammad himself led a caravan raid to Waddan (Al-Abwa).
...
The fifth raid, known as the invasion of Buwat, was also commanded by Muhammad.^[14] A month after the raid at al-Abwa, he personally led 200 men including Muhajirs and Ansars to Bawat, a place on the caravan route of the Quraysh merchants. A herd of 1,500 camels, accompanied by 100 riders under the leadership of Umayyah ibn Khalaf, a Quraysh.^[23]

According to Muslim scholars Ibn Hisham and Ibn Ishaq's the purpose of these raid were to plunder this rich Quraysh caravan, it is mentioned in their biography of Muhammad (the earliest surviving biography of Muhammad from the 7th century) that for these caravan raids Muhammad gave permission to "plunder" the caravans of theirs enemies and seize their goods and property(s) and said: "Go forth against this caravan; it may be that Allah will grant you plunder.^[17][24] The Muslim scholar Al-Waqidi also mentions the same.^[18]
...
The Nakhla Raid was the seventh Caravan Raid and the first successful raid against the Meccans. Abdullah ibn Jahsh was the Commander .^[27][28]

It took place in Rajab 2 A.H., i.e. January 624 A.H. Muhammad despatched ‘Abdullah bin Jahsh Asadi to Nakhlah at the head of 12 Emigrants with six camels.^{[20][29][30][31]}
...
Aftermath after new Quran verse revealed
According to Ibn Kathir Prophet Muhammad refused to accept ransom until he was sure his companions were safe. He also threatened to kill the captives "For we fear for their safety with you. If you kill them, we will kill your people", Ibn Kathir cites Ibn Ishaqs 7th century biography of Prophet Muhammad as the primary source for this quote.^[33] The Muslim scholar Muhammad Husayn Haykal also mentions this and said the verse which permitted Muslims to fight in the months which were considered sacred by the Arab pagans (i.e. 1st, 7th, 11th and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) had "brought the Muslims relief", and that then Prophet Muhammad had accepted his share of the booty^[35]

Soon after his release, al-Hakam bin Kaysan, one of the two prisoners captured, became a Muslim.^[20][25][37] Mubarakpuri mentions that the Quran verse 47:20 was also sent down, dispraising the hypocrites and cowards who are scared of fighting, and exhorted Muslims to fight.^[38]
...

© Copyright Original Source

[Diogenes]

No one is defending Islam. I am simply commenting on the over-simplistic remarks and pronouncements by various individuals.

Pronouncements by Muhammed would be rather significant in regard to the teachings of Islam.

Yes Islam can be, and was, on occasion violent. It also like other religions has its fanatics.

Islam also commands death for apostacy whereas the NT has no such command.

However, religious violence and brutality is not confined to Islam. If you accept the narratives of the more primitive texts of the Hebrew bible so too were the Israelites [often divinely sanctioned] They also [according to those texts invaded a country] and massacred its populations.

I'm aware of the violence in the Old Testament, but that was so far in the past it's strange you should bring it up seeing as you tend to wink at morally dubious ancient behaviours.

Likewise Christianity sacked cities and invaded countries [and it certainly enforced conversion]. Then we have the Hindu violence [encouraged in part by Modi's nationalism] against Muslims in India.

Christianity has never sacked any cities et al, individuals who profess Christianity certainly have. I'm not familiar with Hindu teachings, but I am aware of Modi's nationalist agenda.

[Sparko]

Interesting that H_A will uncritically take the Muslim's word for it, but vigorously deconstructs any Christian point.

She accepts any source that supports her point and denigrates any that doesn't. She is basically a goggle-scholar, using confirmation bias to filter her sources.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Interesting that H_A will uncritically take the Muslim's word for it, but vigorously deconstructs any Christian point.

I have also read other texts on this issue and the over-simplified "spread by the sword" is exactly that. No one is disputing that there were forced conversions and violence.

However, your own religion is hardly guiltless of that. The Conquistadors come to mind. As does Charles the Great and the Saxons. Or the Spanish and the Conversos. Not to mention those later Imperial European invasions of numerous parts of the world to exploit resources; with that Imperialism went Christian missionaries to convert the indigenous heathens to the true religion.

[Sparko]

I have also read other texts on this issue and the over-simplified "spread by the sword" is exactly that. No one is disputing that there were forced conversions and violence.

However, your own religion is hardly guiltless of that. The Conquistadors come to mind. As does Charles the Great and the Saxons. Or the Spanish and the Conversos. Not to mention those later Imperial European invasions of numerous parts of the world to exploit resources; with that Imperialism went Christian missionaries to convert the indigenous heathens to the true religion.

As I quoted above, Muhammad actually added verses to the quran as he went along to support his actions of getting Muslims to fight. He engineered his religion to do what he wanted: Conquer and subjugate people into his cult. So yes, Islam not only teaches forced conversion, it was engineered for it by a blood thirsty cult leader.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

She accepts any source that supports her point and denigrates any that doesn't. She is basically a goggle-scholar, using confirmation bias to filter her sources.

No one has yet provided any sources. A selection cherry-picked quotes and some unsupported remarks do not constitute "sources".

The fact that you and others here do not want to accept is that the history of Islam is very complicated. However, as is your wont you prefer to accept simple answers [that endorse your own confirmation bias] when dealing with complex subjects

[Sparko]

No one has yet provided any sources. A selection cherry-picked quotes and some unsupported remarks do not constitute "sources".

The fact that you and others here do not want to accept is that the history of Islam is very complicated. However, as is your wont you prefer to accept simple answers [that endorse your own confirmation bias] when dealing with complex subjects

I provided a wiki page complete with footnotes to source documents above. While I don't usually care for wiki, it does a good job of listing the raids Muhammad conducted against Mecca, how he added to the Quran as needed to convince his followers to fight for him, complete with sources including ancient biographies and writings by Muhammad's followers detailing the history.

A much better source than your laughable article from a modern Islamic apologist.

[rogue06]

Of course we do. We have the Quran. There is no reason to think his words were changed. And we have Muhammad's own actions that back up his words in the Quran. What sense would it make for him to write that Islam must be peaceably spread and then he himself spread it by the sword? Your excuse is ridiculous.


You haven't cited anything as far as I can see, just your own opinion and excuses.


You can repeat yourself as much as you like. You are still just as wrong no matter how many times you do.



Sounds like you are talking about yourself there, H_A. - whenever someone counters your dumbass assertions you start spouting nonsense like you are doing here, or saying things like:

Considering the practice of abrogation there would be no need to alter or change what he said because it would be superseded. That the original earlier statements are allowed to remain in the text is what many non-Muslims find so confusing -- and some Muslims use that to their advantage. Such as when they quote the passages where Muhammad promotes peace and toleration as being in the qur'an, but conveniently leave out that these were later supplanted by a later declaration that voids the original.

The confusion is added to in that the chapters (surah) aren't arranged chronological but by length (except the first or opening one), meaning the abrogated passages could be found later in the text than the declaration abrogating it.

[rogue06]

As I quoted above, Muhammad actually added verses to the quran as he went along to support his actions of getting Muslims to fight. He engineered his religion to do what he wanted: Conquer and subjugate people into his cult. So yes, Islam not only teaches forced conversion, it was engineered for it by a blood thirsty cult leader.

The original Joseph Smith, but more so.

[Rational Gaze]

If one consults the Encyclopedia of Wars by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod, one finds that Islam is responsible for more than half of all religious conflicts. Of the 1,763 wars chronicled, 123 are religious conflicts, or roughly 6.98%. That number drops to 3.23% if we exclude Islam.

[Sparko]

The original Joseph Smith, but more so.

Maybe where Smith got some of his ideas from?