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

  • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    B-but, but that's different!

    I wonder if she'll be writing "Dr. Matthews" when referencing him in the future

    But then, she's a hypocrite.
    That shows how much attention you paid to my post. Matthews is a woman.
    "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


    • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      B-but, but that's different!

      I wonder if she'll be writing "Dr. Matthews" when referencing him in the future

      But then, she's a hypocrite.
      She did provide an excuse, but given the identity of the one making the excuse, it rang rather hollowly. Does your notepad include all the times she has appealed to authority to try making her points, or denigrated people without notable qualifications and dismissed arguments on that basis?
      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
      .
      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
      Scripture before Tradition:
      but that won't prevent others from
      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
      of the right to call yourself Christian.

      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

        That shows how much attention you paid to my post. Matthews is a woman.
        Shelly Matthews does have a PhD in theology, but I think the honorific should properly be "Professor."
        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
        .
        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
        Scripture before Tradition:
        but that won't prevent others from
        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
        of the right to call yourself Christian.

        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

          Dr Matthews deals with it in a succinct article

          https://www.bibleodyssey.org/passage...new-testament/

          Violence in the New Testament


          Is the New Testament a violent book? Is the God of the New Testament less violent than the God of the Old Testament?

          When people imagine an angry male God, dishing out punishments and inflicting suffering, they might identify Him as the God of the Old Testament. When asked to consider stories about inflicting harm, even death, upon others in God’s name, again, they might think they are in Old Testament territory. But the New Testament has its own share of violence committed by both people and God. Christians have sometimes assumed that the ministry of Jesus reflected a radical shift in the nature of God towards peace and love, and away from anger and wrath. Yet, depending on context and point of view, New Testament texts might depict God, and God’s people, as peaceful, or violent, or both.

          Name-calling is a common type of violence in the New Testament. In response to the fact that many Jews did not believe that Jesus was the messiah, gospel authors told stories of Jesus attacking them in his teaching. In Matt 23:4-36 Jesus derides Pharisees as the vilest of hypocrites. In John 8:44, Jesus calls “the Jews” the “children of the devil.” While Jews are commonly the target of such name-calling, polytheists are also attacked. For example, Titus 1:12 dismisses the entire population of Crete as “liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons.”

          New Testament texts often reflect, rather than challenge, the violent household and political structures of the ancient world. Jesus tells parables in which beatings, and even killings, of household slaves are affirmed as disciplinary measures (for example, Luke 12:45-47). Paul warns the Corinthians, that as their “father,” he might return to them “with a rod,” presumably to beat them (1Cor 4:21). In Gal 5:12, Paul expresses the wish that those who disagree with him on the matter of circumcision might “castrate themselves.”

          The final judgement is imagined in particularly violent terms in the New Testament, with the book of Revelation serving as Exhibit A. Revelation’s pages burst with gruesome scenes of cosmic battles, plagues, and bloodshed. Consider, for instance, the birds who gorge on human flesh at God’s banquet (Rev 19:17-21). While Revelation is often treated as an outlier, it is better to understand this book as fully at home within New Testament apocalyptic longing for God’s violent judgment against non-believers. Paul imagines Christ at the end of time, handing over the kingdom to God, but only after “he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power” (1Cor 15:24). 2Thess 1:5-10 promises a final judgement with Jesus revealed “in flaming fire,” and inflicting the “punishment of eternal destruction.” Luke’s parable of the nobleman’s return, likely meant to represent Jesus’s second coming, calls for his enemies to be brought forward and slaughtered in his presence (Luke 19:27). Such violent images of final judgement owe to an increasing preoccupation with the afterlife, something of little concern in the Old Testament.

          Are positively asserting this block of text as correct interpretation and thus willing to defend it or are you just citing what you quickly searched for as undoubtedly would have posted such a block of text at the very beginning if you had it and not willing to defend it?


          In other words, why should I bother even reading such a block of text if you're unwilling to defend the interpretation?
          P1) If , then I win.

          P2)

          C) I win.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            So, still nothing where Jesus tells his followers to force people to convert. Instead we're treated to someone who says things like

            Name-calling is a common type of violence in the New Testament.


            'scuse me but...

            Apparently the adage of "words will never hurt me" was a lie and that words are in did violence. Perhaps the next Spanish Inquisition will include diabolical name-calling.
            P1) If , then I win.

            P2)

            C) I win.

            Comment


            • From Patricia Crone's God's Rule: Government and Islam, Columbia University Press, 2004

              My emphasis and note she is offering comments from medieval Muslim jurists and scholars

              It is thanks to the classical definition of jihad as missionary warfare that the Arab conquerors were once depicted in Western literature as warriors fighting with the Qur'an in in one hand and the sword in the other. The stereotype has its roots in the sources. Thus the jurist al-Ḥalīmī [died c.1012] describes jihad as calling people to Islam and backing the call with violence where necessary. Jihad is "the forcible mission assisted by the unsheathed sword against wrongheaded people who arrogantly refuse to accept the plain truth after it has become clear", according to Al-Juwayni [died 1085 CE]. God sent Muhammad "to call to belief in God's unity by the sword" the fourteenth-century Ibn Rajah says. "If they adopt our creed, well and good. If not, we put them to the sword," as a seventeenth century Indian hagiography puts it, popularising the image ... For all that, the stereotype is misleading, not only in connection with the conquests, but also later, when jihad had indubitably come to be understood as a missionary enterprise.

              As the jurists saw it, holy warriors called to God's unity with the sword by venturing into Dar al-Harb in order to summon the infidels to Islam. The summons, if actually delivered, were meant to be peaceful, and if the infidels accepted them, the war was over. In practice, they did not, of course, and the summons might not even be delivered, on the grounds that the infidels had heard them before. They were in that case to be fought until they surrendered politically. The departure from the stereotype starts here, for whether the defeated infidels should be forced to convert depended on what type of infidels they were. The key point was that all infidels had to be brought under Muslim sovereignty, not that they all had to accept Islam. People of the Book meaning Jews and Christians, were to be distinguished from pagans, according to most jurists. Since the Jews and the Christians had received earlier revelations from God, they could be allowed to exist. They were to be offered status as protected people in return for payment of a demeaning poll-tax , the jurists said, adducing the Prophet's precedent and Q. 9:29: "Fight those who do not believe in God and the last day and do not forbid what God and His messenger have forbidden and do not practise the religion of truth, from among those who have been given the book, until they pay jizya out of hand, in a state of humiliation". [...]

              Practice was a good deal simpler than theory. Outside Arabia and Berber North Africa, successful jihad seems never to have been followed by coercive measures against infidels refusing to convert. Male captives might be killed or enslaved, whatever their religious affiliation. [People of the Book were not protected by Islamic law until they had accepted dhimma] Captives might also be given the choice between Islam and death, or they might pronounce the confession of faith of their own accord to avoid execution: the Jurists ruled that their change of status was to be accepted even though they had only converted out of fear. Women and children captured in the course of the campaigns were usually enslaved, again regardless of their faith. But the conquered population at large rarely seems to have been given a choice between conversion and death, and it is by omitting this point that the stereotype misleads. Once the war was over, people received dhimma in return for the payment of jizya and were generally left in peace, again whether they were pagans or People of the Book. One should not think of jihad as something conducted along the lines of Charlemagne's forced conversion of the Saxons

              If this disposes of the stereotyped misconception, it lands us with the opposite problem of explaining how the jurists could see holy war as a missionary enterprise at all. Jihad was still in the nature of divinely enjoined imperialism. The fact that the troops were meant to summon the enemy to Islam was largely symbolic; the missionary phase of the warfare came to an end the moment the invitation was refused; some male captives apart, all conquered peoples were in practice allowed to retain their religion once they had been enslaved or placed under the political control of the Muslims. How then could the jurists see the enterprise as a call to Islam backed by violence? In what way did it promote the spread of the faith? The answer, of course, is that captives apart, it did so indirectly.

              Holy war spread Islam first and foremost in the sense of extending its sovereignty. Muslim rulers would move in along with qāḍīs [judges] and scholars to build mosques, apply Islamic law, place restrictions on the building of non-Muslim houses of worship and introduce other discriminatory measures against the original inhabitants, who were reduced to tributaries in their own land. Inevitably, they sooner or later began to convert.. They were not necessarily persecuted: the Muslim record of tolerance is generally good. But those who stuck to their faith were apt to feel that history was passing them by, which easily turned into a conviction that the truth must lie elsewhere.

              Nor should the importance of captives be underestimated. Muslim warriors routinely took large numbers of them. Leaving aside those who converted to avoid execution, some were ransomed and the rest were enslaved, usually for domestic use. Dispersed in Muslim households, slaves almost always converted, encouraged or pressurised by their masters, driven by a need to bond with others, or slowly becoming accustomed to seeing things through Muslim eyes even if they tried to resist. Though neither the dhimmi nor the slave had been faced with a choice between Islam and death, it would be absurd to deny that force played a major role in their conversion. Nor do medieval jurists generally attempt to deny it. They did hold that "one should not say of someone who converts after warfare that he has been converted by force [mukrahan] for he is not forced when he consents [in his inner self] and becomes a genuine Muslim" ; there had not fact been any coercion at ail some said, for true belief is what is goes on in the heart, not the public confession of faith. But this was to square the use of force With the Qur'anic statement "there is no compulsion in religion" or to spare the feelings of the convert, not to deny the role of coercion in enabling him to sec the light.


              So while force is clearly evident [even if indirectly] and there were on occasions violent forced conversions the "stereotype" [Crone's word] of routine forced conversion [convert or die] is precisely that.

              Looked at in that way, Islam was little different from Christianity, and in some respects was slightly more tolerant, to wit leaving conquered people generally [once they had accepted their diminished positions and paid their taxes] in peace.

              I now await comments that Patricia Crone was an Islamist or a Muslim apologist.







              "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


              • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                I will correct my original oversight re the one verse concerning Gabriel/Jibril who acts as the messenger of Allah's revelations into the heart of God’s chosen messenger. and I acknowledge that oversight.
                A good start, but are you still going to stand by these?
                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                Islam does not preach forcible conversion.
                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                We do not know what Muhammed said. The Qur'an was written down centuries later.
                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                Around 800 CE biographies of Muhammed came to written and these were carefully preserved. Before that? We have nothing.

                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                However, my other comment still stands. This was a psychological/mystical experience not a physical one. No figure appeared and no voice was heard. Likewise no profuse sweats and agonies of doubt/fear.
                Experiences

                According to Muhammad, Gabriel came to see him fairly regularly, near Mecca and Medina over the course of some 22 or 23 years, each time sharing more of what the qur'an held.

                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                My other comments were to biographies of Mohammed and literary sources for his life only commence some time after his death in the mid eighth to ninth centuries CE. Nor do the majority of those who make it their discipline to study Islam and its history consider those accounts to be straightforward and historically accurate.
                Well, we can add another one to the list above

                Muslims hold that the hadiths, particularly those declared sahih, as Holy Writ. They are not viewed as merely being simple biographies and the like.

                Sources of wisdom and authority in Islamic sacred texts

                The principal textual sources: The Qur’an, hadiths and Sunnah

                Constellated around the central theme of God’s unity, and sharing a spiritual heritage with Judaism and Christianity, the Qur’an serves as the foundational text of the Islamic faith, enshrining its teachings and beliefs across a gamut of theological, legal, ritual, ethical and eschatological questions. Treated with similar reverence are reports that record the sayings and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad, collected together in a corpus of material referred to as Hadith. Some accounts are pithy and concise, while others include lengthy statements, covering a range of topics: his rulings and judgements, testimonies, words of exhortation, personal qualities and accounts of key historical events in his lifetime. An example of its use is that while the Qur’an prescribes the pilgrimage (hajj) to Mecca, the hadiths supply an intricately exhaustive range of detail pertaining to its performance.


                The above makes it clear the only reason it took awhile for these to be written is that there was hesitancy to do so "as it was believed that the transmission of knowledge should remain essentially oral."

                Now, I should make it clear that you can find Islamic sources telling westerners that the Hadiths are not sacred, primarily because they realize how many damaging the things they contain and therefore they'd rather keep it from the infidels (good old-fashioned taqqiya/idtirar in play). Often they will combine hadiths that are suspect (referred to as daif/dhaif or "weak"), which are those with a questionable isnad, or chain of transmission, with those regarded as holy to try to make the point.

                Still, with that being said, Muslims seem to agree that the qur'an is the chief sacred text with the hadiths being secondary.

                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                We can therefore assume that the Qur'an is a collection of Mohammed's comments made in his belief that he had experienced a divine revelation, but does it contain all his comments? That we cannot know.
                Muslims claim he was copying down what Gabriel dictated, not adding his own thoughts and comments (which you can find in the hadiths)

                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                However, his revelations [all or perhaps only the majority] were collected and written down [possibly after his death]. The Birmingham fragment has a radio carbon date range of between 568-645 and even with a 95.4% probability that is still nearly eighty years difference.
                "Math is hard."

                Muhammad died in 632. The latest date for the Birmingham qur'an manuscript is 645.

                645 - 632 = 13.

                That's 13 years. So where did you extract your "nearly eighty years difference" from?

                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                The earliest date also places it two years before the year we are told he was born.
                Not as bad as the above but still an example of an inability to do basic subtraction.

                Muhammad was born in 571. The earliest date for the Birmingham qur'an manuscript is 568.

                571 - 568 = 3.

                That's three not two years.

                And as I noted when I informed you about the Birmingham qur'an manuscript, the earlier age is obviously untenable.

                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                Hence the dates for these early collections remain controversial
                Given your profound inability to do even simple subtraction (yes. I'll be bookmarking this ), I don't think you are in any position to make proclamations here.

                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                If, as is generally accepted it was originally recited in an oral form, how can we be certain of the reliability of that tradition and [as noted above] how can we be certain that everything he said was remembered orally? Or did he formulate his message into liturgical language, adapting and/or imitating other ancient religious practises? We do not know.
                The qur'an was compiled immediately after his death from what was written down. The hadiths, OTOH, were what was transmitted orally. And when Uthman produced the final version they insisted that what only things attested to by multiple sources be included.

                And again, there was griping that he excluded things because of not having proper attestation but nobody said he altered or changed anything.

                I'm going to post something directly from my notes I took decades ago since it's a rare instance of citing page numbers (which should warm the cockles of your heart)

                ‘Ibn Umar al-Khattab explicitly admits: “Let no one of you say that he has acquired the entire Koran for how does he know that it is all? Much of the Koran has been lost, thus let him say, ‘I have acquired of what is available.’” (Suyuti: Itqan part 3, page 72). A’isha (also page 72) adds to the story of ibn Umar and says: “During the time of the prophet, the chapter of the Parties used to be two hundred verses when read. When Uthman edited the copies of the Koran, only the current (verses) were recorded.” (73 verses). The same statement was made by Ubay ibn Ka’b, one of the great companions, as recorded in the Suyuti: “This famous companion asked one of the Moslems, ‘How many verses in the chapter of the parties?’ He said, ‘Seventy-two or seventy-three verses.’ He (Ubay) told him, “It used to be almost equal to the chapter the cow (about 286 verses) and included the verse of the stoning.’ The man asked, ‘What is the verse of the stoning?’ He said, ‘If an old man or woman committed adultery, stone them to death.’” This same story and same dialogue is also recorded by Ibn Hazm (volume 8, part 11, pages 234-35)


                And another bit which includes a good deal of my own commentary interspersed within it

                What happened to some of the missing parts? Would you believe the “my dog ate it,” or a similar schoolboy excuse has been presented? In his book (volume 8, part II, pages 235-36) Ibn Hazm clearly states: “The verses of stoning and breast feeding were in the possession of A’isha in a (Koranic) copy. When Mohammed died and people became busy in the burial preparations, a domesticated animal entered in and ate it.” Mustafa Husayn, who edited and reorganized the book “al-Kash-Shaf” by the Zamakh-Shari, asserts this fact on page 518 of part 3, claiming that Abdulla Ibn Abi Bakr and A’isha herself related this story to him. This same incident is mentioned by Dar-al-Qutni, al-Bazzar and al-Tabarani, on the authority of Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, who heard it from Abdulla who had himself heard it from A’isha. So I guess, “my goat ate it” would probably be more correct.


                So things were lost, but again, nobody claims that things were changed.

                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                We also have to consider from where this religion arose. Prior to the Islamic conquests there appear to be no sources [outside of Arabia] that mention Mecca. It may well be true that a place called Mecca stood where Mecca stands today and that it had a pagan sanctuary [such sanctuaries were hardly unknown throughout Arabia]. Likewise it could well have belonged to a tribe called the Quraysh but there is no degree of reasonable certainty and therefore no context for the man and his message.[see Crone https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/mohammed_3866jsp/]
                FWIU, Mecca first appears on maps either in the late 4th or early 5th centuries A.D. indicating it came into existence around that time (which causes problems for the Muslim claim that Abraham visited it back in the 2nd millennium B.C.

                Still, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever about whether Islam has always promoted forced conversion going directly back to Muhammad's words and deeds, or even when the qur'an was compiled. So why do you think this irrelevancy has to be considered?


                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


                • Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                  That this thread is about whether Islam teaches forcible conversion. Yet you keep wanting to change the subject.

                  So just admit that Islam did/does teach forcible conversion and that Muhammad actually did forcible conversions and then we can move on.
                  Noooooooooooo. This thread has been a virtual gold mine of "H_Aisms"

                  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


                  • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    From Patricia Crone's God's Rule: Government and Islam, Columbia University Press, 2004

                    My emphasis and note she is offering comments from medieval Muslim jurists and scholars

                    It is thanks to the classical definition of jihad as missionary warfare that the Arab conquerors were once depicted in Western literature as warriors fighting with the Qur'an in in one hand and the sword in the other. The stereotype has its roots in the sources. Thus the jurist al-Ḥalīmī [died c.1012] describes jihad as calling people to Islam and backing the call with violence where necessary. Jihad is "the forcible mission assisted by the unsheathed sword against wrongheaded people who arrogantly refuse to accept the plain truth after it has become clear", according to Al-Juwayni [died 1085 CE]. God sent Muhammad "to call to belief in God's unity by the sword" the fourteenth-century Ibn Rajah says. "If they adopt our creed, well and good. If not, we put them to the sword," as a seventeenth century Indian hagiography puts it, popularising the image ... For all that, the stereotype is misleading, not only in connection with the conquests, but also later, when jihad had indubitably come to be understood as a missionary enterprise.
                    The cited passage starts with an admission that "jihad is a forcible mission assisted by the sword against wrongheaded people" (11th century) and reiterated in the 14th century. Nothing said about the content of the Koran.

                    As the jurists saw it, holy warriors called to God's unity with the sword by venturing into Dar al-Harb in order to summon the infidels to Islam. The summons, if actually delivered, were meant to be peaceful, and if the infidels accepted them, the war was over. In practice, they did not, of course, and the summons might not even be delivered, on the grounds that the infidels had heard them before. They were in that case to be fought until they surrendered politically. The departure from the stereotype starts here, for whether the defeated infidels should be forced to convert depended on what type of infidels they were. The key point was that all infidels had to be brought under Muslim sovereignty, not that they all had to accept Islam. People of the Book meaning Jews and Christians, were to be distinguished from pagans, according to most jurists. Since the Jews and the Christians had received earlier revelations from God, they could be allowed to exist. They were to be offered status as protected people in return for payment of a demeaning poll-tax , the jurists said, adducing the Prophet's precedent and Q. 9:29: "Fight those who do not believe in God and the last day and do not forbid what God and His messenger have forbidden and do not practise the religion of truth, from among those who have been given the book, until they pay jizya out of hand, in a state of humiliation". [...]
                    Christians and Jews had special status provided that they submitted to a particular tax, and provided they forbade what Muslims forbade and practiced what Muslims practiced. Otherwise they were to be fought until they did. For others, including Christians and Jews who would not pay the tax, it was convert or die.

                    Practice was a good deal simpler than theory. Outside Arabia and Berber North Africa, successful jihad seems never to have been followed by coercive measures against infidels refusing to convert. Male captives might be killed or enslaved, whatever their religious affiliation. [People of the Book were not protected by Islamic law until they had accepted dhimma] Captives might also be given the choice between Islam and death, or they might pronounce the confession of faith of their own accord to avoid execution: the Jurists ruled that their change of status was to be accepted even though they had only converted out of fear. Women and children captured in the course of the campaigns were usually enslaved, again regardless of their faith. But the conquered population at large rarely seems to have been given a choice between conversion and death, and it is by omitting this point that the stereotype misleads. Once the war was over, people received dhimma in return for the payment of jizya and were generally left in peace, again whether they were pagans or People of the Book. One should not think of jihad as something conducted along the lines of Charlemagne's forced conversion of the Saxons
                    Outside of Arabia, the death penalty might be commuted to enslavement.

                    If this disposes of the stereotyped misconception, it lands us with the opposite problem of explaining how the jurists could see holy war as a missionary enterprise at all. Jihad was still in the nature of divinely enjoined imperialism. The fact that the troops were meant to summon the enemy to Islam was largely symbolic; the missionary phase of the warfare came to an end the moment the invitation was refused; some male captives apart, all conquered peoples were in practice allowed to retain their religion once they had been enslaved or placed under the political control of the Muslims. How then could the jurists see the enterprise as a call to Islam backed by violence? In what way did it promote the spread of the faith? The answer, of course, is that captives apart, it did so indirectly.
                    People were enslaved until they adopted Islam. Does the author provide citations for the claim that "all conquered peoples were in practice allowed to retain their religion once they had been enslaved"? Looking at the next paragraph, there seems to be a conflict.

                    Holy war spread Islam first and foremost in the sense of extending its sovereignty. Muslim rulers would move in along with qāḍīs [judges] and scholars to build mosques, apply Islamic law, place restrictions on the building of non-Muslim houses of worship and introduce other discriminatory measures against the original inhabitants, who were reduced to tributaries in their own land. Inevitably, they sooner or later began to convert.. They were not necessarily persecuted: the Muslim record of tolerance is generally good. But those who stuck to their faith were apt to feel that history was passing them by, which easily turned into a conviction that the truth must lie elsewhere.
                    Denying people the right to practice their own religion, and being subjected to other discriminatory measures does not amount to persecution (???)

                    Nor should the importance of captives be underestimated. Muslim warriors routinely took large numbers of them. Leaving aside those who converted to avoid execution, some were ransomed and the rest were enslaved, usually for domestic use. Dispersed in Muslim households, slaves almost always converted, encouraged or pressurised by their masters, driven by a need to bond with others, or slowly becoming accustomed to seeing things through Muslim eyes even if they tried to resist. Though neither the dhimmi nor the slave had been faced with a choice between Islam and death, it would be absurd to deny that force played a major role in their conversion. Nor do medieval jurists generally attempt to deny it. They did hold that "one should not say of someone who converts after warfare that he has been converted by force [mukrahan] for he is not forced when he consents [in his inner self] and becomes a genuine Muslim" ; there had not fact been any coercion at ail some said, for true belief is what is goes on in the heart, not the public confession of faith. But this was to square the use of force With the Qur'anic statement "there is no compulsion in religion" or to spare the feelings of the convert, not to deny the role of coercion in enabling him to sec the light.[/box]
                    The people who escaped death were subjected to measures that virtually ensured conversion. But of course, it wasn't a coerced conversion (???)

                    So while force is clearly evident [even if indirectly] and there were on occasions violent forced conversions the "stereotype" [Crone's word] of routine forced conversion [convert or die] is precisely that.
                    Tell that to the Samaritan Jews, or the miaphysites (not that the churches would have been particularly upset about either).

                    Looked at in that way, Islam was little different from Christianity, and in some respects was slightly more tolerant, to wit leaving conquered people generally [once they had accepted their diminished positions and paid their taxes] in peace.

                    I now await comments that Patricia Crone was an Islamist or a Muslim apologist.
                    None of that, even viewed in the most favourable light, changes the fact that the Koran promotes conversion at sword point, where the Bible does not.
                    Last edited by tabibito; 01-22-2023, 12:05 PM.
                    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                    .
                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                    Scripture before Tradition:
                    but that won't prevent others from
                    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                    of the right to call yourself Christian.

                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                      The cited passage starts with an admission that "jihad is a forcible mission assisted by the sword against wrongheaded people" (11th century) and reiterated in the 14th century. Nothing said about the content of the Koran.
                      That refers to conquest not enforcing the religion.

                      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                      Christians and Jews had special status provided that they submitted to a particular tax, and provided they forbade what Muslims forbade and practiced what Muslims practiced. Otherwise they were to be fought until they did. For others, including Christians and Jews who would not pay the tax, it was convert or die.
                      From Vol II of The Encyclopaedia of Islam [New Edition] Eds, B. Lewis, C. H. Pellat and J Schacht, Brill, 1991

                      the Land of Islam' or, more simply, in Muslim authors, 'our Country' is the whole territory in which the law of Islam prevails. Its unity resides in the community of the faith, the unity of the law, and the guarantees assured to members of the umma. The umma, established in consequence of the final revelation, also guarantees the faith, the persons, possessions and religious organization, albeit on a lower level, of dhimmis, the followers of the creeds of Christianity and Judaism which sprang from earlier revelations, and of the Zoroastrians.


                      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                      Outside of Arabia, the death penalty might be commuted to enslavement.
                      Re-read what I cited.

                      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                      People were enslaved until they adopted Islam.
                      Slaves remained slaves after they had adopted Islam [see Crone's comments on the conversion of slaves]

                      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                      Does the author provide citations for the claim that "all conquered peoples were in practice allowed to retain their religion once they had been enslaved"? Looking at the next paragraph, there seems to be a conflict.
                      It was not about intrinsically about conversion.

                      As the paragraph opening makes clear it was about conquest/sovereignty. Crone also compares Islamic conquests with later Christian conquests during the ages of "Imperialism". Local peoples were permitted to practise their religions, and were deemed to be of a lower social order, but the merits of Christianity were regularly demonstrated, exhibited, and promulgated so that many local people did convert to the new religion.

                      Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                      Denying people the right to practice their own religion, and being subjected to other discriminatory measures does not amount to persecution (???)
                      There was no automatic denial of religious practises for People of the Book.

                      And Christianity was hardly tolerant of permitting others to practise their religion in its sovereign areas. As Crone notes, in comparison to much of Christendom in [let us suggest the eleventh century] Islamic states were generally far more tolerant.

                      I am not trying to hold up Islam as some wonderful, benign, utopic religion and society but the sweeping generalisations about its intrinsic violence and fanatical desire to force people to "convert or die" is a stereotype.

                      Of course no one is disputing that there were occasions when violence and forced conversions were conducted, but again in that regard it was no different from the other Abrahamic faiths.

                      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                      The people who escaped death were subjected to measures that virtually ensured conversion. But of course, it wasn't a coerced conversion (???)
                      Consider the way the Jews and Muslims were forced to convert in sixteenth century Spain. Wherein lies the difference?

                      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                      Tell that to the Samaritan Jews, or the miaphysites (not that the churches would have been particularly upset about either).
                      Tell that to the Jews of medieval Europe.

                      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                      None of that, even viewed in the most favourable light, changes the fact that the Koran promotes conversion at sword point, where the Bible does not.
                      No more so than Christianity it would seem.



                      "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


                      • [QUOTE=Hypatia_Alexandria;n1451276] That refers to conquest not enforcing the religion.



                        From Vol II of The Encyclopaedia of Islam [New Edition] Eds, B. Lewis, C. H. Pellat and J Schacht, Brill, 1991

                        Re-read what I cited.
                        My bad. Outside Arabia and Berber North Africa, successful jihad seems never to have been followed by coercive measures. Male captives might be killed or enslaved, whatever their religious affiliation. [People of the Book were not protected by Islamic law until they had accepted dhimma] Within Arabia, people of the book had slightly better protections.

                        Slaves remained slaves after they had adopted Islam [see Crone's comments on the conversion of slaves]
                        OK - it is even worse than I had thought.


                        As the paragraph opening makes clear it was about conquest/sovereignty. Crone also compares Islamic conquests with later Christian conquests during the ages of "Imperialism". Local peoples were permitted to practise their religions, and were deemed to be of a lower social order, but the merits of Christianity were regularly demonstrated, exhibited, and promulgated so that many local people did convert to the new religion.
                        Outside of Arabia and Berber North Africa

                        There was no automatic denial of religious practises for People of the Book.
                        So that makes denial of religious practices for people who weren't of the book less burdensome?

                        Though neither the dhimmi nor the slave had been faced with a choice between Islam and death, it would be absurd to deny that force played a major role in their conversion.

                        Consider the way the Jews and Muslims were forced to convert in sixteenth century Spain. Wherein lies the difference?
                        Where the churches conducted the same actions, those actions are to be viewed in the same light as similar actions by Muslims and Jews. It can be said that there is room for mitigation in circumstances where the opponents would have conducted themselves in the same way.


                        The point is demonstrated.
                        Where conversion at the point of the sword is approved by the Koran, it is disapproved by the Bible.



                        Where people in charge of the churches are in breach of scriptural warrant, the scripture is not at fault. (and the teachings of people who live in violation of scriptural warrant cannot be considered reliable.)
                        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                        .
                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                        Scripture before Tradition:
                        but that won't prevent others from
                        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                        of the right to call yourself Christian.

                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

                          According to Muhammad, Gabriel came to see him fairly regularly, near Mecca and Medina over the course of some 22 or 23 years, each time sharing more of what the qur'an held.
                          There is nothing in the Qura'n about that.

                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          Muslims hold that the hadiths, particularly those declared sahih, as Holy Writ.
                          That is again one of your sweeping generalisations. Nor were the hadiths ever intended to be considered in such a manner. Some Muslims today may believe that they are deemed sacred, but that is another matter.

                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          Muhammad was born in 571. The earliest date for the Birmingham qur'an manuscript is 568.
                          With regard to Mohammed's date of birth we cannot be absolutely certain. Most sources seem to opt for 570 although some give it as 571. And indeed if you believe the legend concerning his grandfather's attempts to kill his father [apparently mere hours before Mohammed was conceived] he was nearly never born at all.


                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          Muhammad died in 632. The latest date for the Birmingham qur'an manuscript is 645.

                          645 - 632 = 13.

                          That's 13 years. So where did you extract your "nearly eighty years difference" from?
                          You stated:

                          The Birmingham qur'an has been radiocarbon dated to between 568 and 645AD


                          In other words there is a potential of 80 years between those dating. You also appear to be unaware that while radiocarbon dating is a very useful tool, it is not always entirely accurate and dating standards can be in error, thereby calling into question historical timelines.

                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          Sources of wisdom and authority in Islamic sacred texts

                          The principal textual sources: The Qur’an, hadiths and Sunnah

                          Constellated around the central theme of God’s unity, and sharing a spiritual heritage with Judaism and Christianity, the Qur’an serves as the foundational text of the Islamic faith, enshrining its teachings and beliefs across a gamut of theological, legal, ritual, ethical and eschatological questions. Treated with similar reverence are reports that record the sayings and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad, collected together in a corpus of material referred to as Hadith. Some accounts are pithy and concise, while others include lengthy statements, covering a range of topics: his rulings and judgements, testimonies, words of exhortation, personal qualities and accounts of key historical events in his lifetime. An example of its use is that while the Qur’an prescribes the pilgrimage (hajj) to Mecca, the hadiths supply an intricately exhaustive range of detail pertaining to its performance.


                          I'm going to post something directly from my notes I took decades ago since it's a rare instance of citing page numbers (which should warm the cockles of your heart)

                          ‘Ibn Umar al-Khattab explicitly admits: “Let no one of you say that he has acquired the entire Koran for how does he know that it is all? Much of the Koran has been lost, thus let him say, ‘I have acquired of what is available.’” (Suyuti: Itqan part 3, page 72). A’isha (also page 72) adds to the story of ibn Umar and says: “During the time of the prophet, the chapter of the Parties used to be two hundred verses when read. When Uthman edited the copies of the Koran, only the current (verses) were recorded.” (73 verses). The same statement was made by Ubay ibn Ka’b, one of the great companions, as recorded in the Suyuti: “This famous companion asked one of the Moslems, ‘How many verses in the chapter of the parties?’ He said, ‘Seventy-two or seventy-three verses.’ He (Ubay) told him, “It used to be almost equal to the chapter the cow (about 286 verses) and included the verse of the stoning.’ The man asked, ‘What is the verse of the stoning?’ He said, ‘If an old man or woman committed adultery, stone them to death.’” This same story and same dialogue is also recorded by Ibn Hazm (volume 8, part 11, pages 234-35)


                          And another bit which includes a good deal of my own commentary interspersed within it

                          What happened to some of the missing parts? Would you believe the “my dog ate it,” or a similar schoolboy excuse has been presented? In his book (volume 8, part II, pages 235-36) Ibn Hazm clearly states: “The verses of stoning and breast feeding were in the possession of A’isha in a (Koranic) copy. When Mohammed died and people became busy in the burial preparations, a domesticated animal entered in and ate it.” Mustafa Husayn, who edited and reorganized the book “al-Kash-Shaf” by the Zamakh-Shari, asserts this fact on page 518 of part 3, claiming that Abdulla Ibn Abi Bakr and A’isha herself related this story to him. This same incident is mentioned by Dar-al-Qutni, al-Bazzar and al-Tabarani, on the authority of Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, who heard it from Abdulla who had himself heard it from A’isha. So I guess, “my goat ate it” would probably be more correct.
                          Isn't it odd that all your citations are from freely available online sites. One hardly requires the services of a university library to obtain those!

                          And you have still failed to provide a single citation [not even some paraphrases] from that "stack of books" that you allege to have read.

                          Why is that? Surely you must have retained something from your vast amount of reading?



                          Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 01-23-2023, 06:31 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


                          • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                            My bad. Outside Arabia and Berber North Africa, successful jihad seems never to have been followed by coercive measures. Male captives might be killed or enslaved, whatever their religious affiliation. [People of the Book were not protected by Islamic law until they had accepted dhimma] Within Arabia, people of the book had slightly better protections.

                            OK - it is even worse than I had thought.
                            From Vol II of The Cambridge World History of Slavery, CUP, 2021. My emphasis

                            For some women in Muslim societies, for example the umm walads, full manumission was possible.

                            [...] In theory, Christian captives who converted to Islam received their manumission immediately. The situation for Muslim captives, however, was more complex.... Christian proprietors were under no obligation to manumit Muslim slaves who chose baptism, but evidence from wills suggests that they regularly did so upon their deaths, which created the incentive for conversion in Iberia. Both Muslim and Christian captives also attempted to buy their own freedom.



                            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                            Outside of Arabia and Berber North Africa

                            So that makes denial of religious practices for people who weren't of the book less burdensome?
                            The early Muslims appear to have had a rather less tolerant view of their fellow Arab "pagans".

                            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                            Though neither the dhimmi nor the slave had been faced with a choice between Islam and death, it would be absurd to deny that force played a major role in their conversion.
                            There is no evidence that death was an automatic threat.


                            Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                            Where the churches conducted the same actions, those actions are to be viewed in the same light as similar actions by Muslims and Jews. It can be said that there is room for mitigation in circumstances where the opponents would have conducted themselves in the same way.
                            That is irrelevant to actual history and one could make precisely the same case for Muslims who demanded by force that their conquered peoples convert.


                            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                            Where conversion at the point of the sword is approved by the Koran, it is disapproved by the Bible.
                            You have yet to provide any attested historical evidence that Islam always automatically demanded conversion at sword point.

                            And there are violent verses ascribed to Jesus requesting his disciples buy swords [for what purpose]? And his coming "to cast fire upon the earth" and his wish that it were already ablaze. Not overly pacific verses are they?

                            Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                            Where people in charge of the churches are in breach of scriptural warrant, the scripture is not at fault. (and the teachings of people who live in violation of scriptural warrant cannot be considered reliable.)
                            So Christians who forced conversions and killed people for their religious beliefs were different? In what way?

                            "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


                            • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                              There is nothing in the Qura'n about that.
                              Qur'an.

                              His appearing to dictate more pf the qur'an is attested to in multiple places, but given the qur'an supposedly represents a copy of the version in Heaven it doesn't provide much if anything in the way of commentary as you keep imagining. The information regarding the visits is found in several hadith.

                              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                              That is again one of your sweeping generalisations.
                              This is often a line you use when you are out of your depth.

                              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                              Nor were the hadiths ever intended to be considered in such a manner. Some Muslims today may believe that they are deemed sacred, but that is another matter.
                              The hadith have always been regarded as holy sacred literature. FWICT originally they were held as co-equal in authority with the qur'an but over the centuries the qur'an was elevated to it's current status and the sahih hadith slightly below.

                              Some Muslims today disparage the hadiths before "infidels" because they contain many embarrassing things they'd rather not discuss with us -- sort of like how modern Mormons publicly throw Brigham Young under the bus. But unlike the Mormons who seem to be genuinely trying to distance themselves from Young, the Muslims are practicing taqqiya/idtirar.

                              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                              You stated:

                              The Birmingham qur'an has been radiocarbon dated to between 568 and 645AD


                              In other words there is a potential of 80 years between those dating. You also appear to be unaware that while radiocarbon dating is a very useful tool, it is not always entirely accurate and dating standards can be in error, thereby calling into question historical timelines.
                              You wrote that

                              However, his revelations [all or perhaps only the majority] were collected and written down [possibly after his death]. The Birmingham fragment has a radio carbon date range of between 568-645 and even with a 95.4% probability that is still nearly eighty years difference.


                              linking the date of Muhammad's death to when Birmingham qur'an was penned.

                              As to my knowledge regarding radiocarbon dating ... I daresay that I can say with complete and utter confidence that I have forgotten more regarding it than you know. I'm quite aware of it's abilities as well as its limitations.

                              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                              Isn't it odd that all your citations are from freely available online sites. One hardly requires the services of a university library to obtain those!
                              The qur'an and hadiths are obviously available online I'm not to sure if some of the more obscure works (in the west at least) are (or were back in 2015 when I originally posted much of this)

                              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                              And you have still failed to provide a single citation [not even some paraphrases] from that "stack of books" that you allege to have read.

                              Why is that? Surely you must have retained something from your vast amount of reading?
                              Are you overdosing on your stupid pills? You make this allegation right after I literally posted something with several specific citations listed

                              Suyuti: Itqan part 3, page 72 ... also page 72 ... volume 8, part 11, pages 234-35 ... volume 8, part II, pages 235-36 ... on page 518 of part 3


                              Most of the works I didn't bother writing the name down for, but rather just the stuff I got out of it. Years later I regret this as I'd like to access some of them again if they are online. One in specific was a very thick book bound in a light brown cover, a virtual encyclopedia regarding the hadiths which divided them into those regarded as sahih and a bunch of those regarded as dhaif. What made it so useful was the comprehensive index and cross referencing. That's how I could find something that is contained in multiple hadiths.




                              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


                              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                Qur'an.

                                His appearing to dictate more pf the qur'an is attested to in multiple places, but given the qur'an supposedly represents a copy of the version in Heaven it doesn't provide much if anything in the way of commentary as you keep imagining. The information regarding the visits is found in several hadith.


                                This is often a line you use when you are out of your depth.


                                The hadith have always been regarded as holy sacred literature. FWICT originally they were held as co-equal in authority with the qur'an but over the centuries the qur'an was elevated to it's current status and the sahih hadith slightly below.

                                Some Muslims today disparage the hadiths before "infidels" because they contain many embarrassing things they'd rather not discuss with us -- sort of like how modern Mormons publicly throw Brigham Young under the bus. But unlike the Mormons who seem to be genuinely trying to distance themselves from Young, the Muslims are practicing taqqiya/idtirar.


                                You wrote that

                                However, his revelations [all or perhaps only the majority] were collected and written down [possibly after his death]. The Birmingham fragment has a radio carbon date range of between 568-645 and even with a 95.4% probability that is still nearly eighty years difference.


                                linking the date of Muhammad's death to when Birmingham qur'an was penned.

                                As to my knowledge regarding radiocarbon dating ... I daresay that I can say with complete and utter confidence that I have forgotten more regarding it than you know. I'm quite aware of it's abilities as well as its limitations.


                                The qur'an and hadiths are obviously available online I'm not to sure if some of the more obscure works (in the west at least) are (or were back in 2015 when I originally posted much of this)


                                Are you overdosing on your stupid pills? You make this allegation right after I literally posted something with several specific citations listed

                                Suyuti: Itqan part 3, page 72 ... also page 72 ... volume 8, part 11, pages 234-35 ... volume 8, part II, pages 235-36 ... on page 518 of part 3


                                Most of the works I didn't bother writing the name down for, but rather just the stuff I got out of it. Years later I regret this as I'd like to access some of them again if they are online. One in specific was a very thick book bound in a light brown cover, a virtual encyclopedia regarding the hadiths which divided them into those regarded as sahih and a bunch of those regarded as dhaif. What made it so useful was the comprehensive index and cross referencing. That's how I could find something that is contained in multiple hadiths.


                                Everything you have cited is online.

                                So you have read all these alleged books but you never bothered to make a note of their titles or their authors? You just wrote down "the stuff I got out of it"? And why "it"? surely that should be "them" or "those"?



                                I am tempted to write "Pull the other one"!


                                "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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                186 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,517 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X