Does Islam preach forcible conversion?

[shunyadragon]

I have a hard time you can be this dense and still be able to post on the internet . . . your selective agenda is showing as well as your awful interpretation of the parable. I posted this in the other thread where you continue to struggle to grasp the simple point but it seems that it needs to be posted here:

I have a hard time you can be this dense and still be able to post on the internet . . . your selective agenda is showing you ignorance of scripture and the historical consequences of two millennia of 'forced conversion by the sword' by those who sincerely believed they were doing the will of Jesus, up until recently when the churches operated missionary schools of forced conversion of Native Americans.

[alaskazimm]

I have a hard time you can be this dense and still be able to post on the internet . . . your selective agenda is showing you ignorance of scripture and the historical consequences of two millennia of 'forced conversion by the sword' by those who sincerely believed they were doing the will of Jesus, up until recently when the churches operated missionary schools of forced conversion of Native Americans.

I live in bush Alaska and you think I am ignorant of the missionary schools run here in Alaska? I have heard first hand from those who have through those missionary schools and I have seen the damage done. In no way does any of that comport with what Jesus taught his followers as the way to spread his message. That you think the scripture allows such is you showing your grave ignorance of the scripture.

[shunyadragon]

I live in bush Alaska and you think I am ignorant of the missionary schools run here in Alaska? I have heard first hand from those who have through those missionary schools and I have seen the damage done. In no way does any of that comport with what Jesus taught his followers as the way to spread his message. That you think the scripture allows such is you showing your grave ignorance of the scripture.

I consider you intentionally ignorant by reason of your Christian agenda. History is a clear and specific witness of 'forced conversion; by those who sincerely believe they are doing the will of God.

[Diogenes]

I consider you intentionally ignorant by reason of your Christian agenda. History is a clear and specific witness of 'forced conversion; by those who sincerely believe they are doing the will of God.

Ah yes, Rogue's problem is his Christian agenda. It can't be you who is biased against Christianity.

[shunyadragon]

Ah yes, Rogue's problem is his Christian agenda. It can't be you who is biased against Christianity.

No, because both Christianity and Islam committed forced conversion over the millennia, and they all believed they were doing God's will. I don't take sides

[Diogenes]

No, because both Christianity and Islam committed forced conversion over the millennia, and they all believed they were doing God's will. I don't take sides

The acts of the followers are not necessarily indicative of the actual texts. You seem completely unwilling to accept that basic notion.

[shunyadragon]

The acts of the followers are not necessarily indicative of the actual texts. You seem completely unwilling to accept that basic notion.

Accept it completely, and the text is ambiguous and conflicting to the point that the followers believe in many and I mean many radically different conclusions of what the basic moral and ethical attitudes toward non-believers. Forced conversion, persecution, and ethnic cleansing is far far too common and at times prevalent to make excuses of just 'not necessarily indicative of the actual texts.'

[eider]

Your rambling of the hypothetical, misinformation, poor context and jumping around all over the place reflects an adverse agenda against the Baha'i Faith makes your posts not worthy to respond to any longer.

That's what I call a 'flounce'.
You don't know Bahai as well as you think, so you flounce off.


Bahais believe that the Bab (1819-1850) was an independent Messenger of God, whose mission was to inaugurate a new cycle in humanity's spiritual development. His writings prepared the way for the mission of Bahaullah." Having said that, the Bahais should acknowledge the violent character of the Babi Faith.

Not so sweet...?
⦁ The principle has been laid down that all Babis were pure people, while all those who failed to accept the Bab were impure and dirty, and the same principle applied to all their belongings and things connected with them. The Bab has further explained this point by saying that even if the non-Babis bathed in the sea a thousand times every day, they could not become clean and pure in body.
(Ref: Bayan, Bab 2, Wahid 6)

⦁ O my followers! Surely Allah has made fighting obligatory for you. You must conquer the cities and the people for Babism and don't be at peace with those who reject Babism".
(Ref: Bayan, Arabic Chapter 1)

[Diogenes]

Accept it completely, and the text is ambiguous and conflicting to the point that the followers believe in many and I mean many radically different conclusions of what the basic moral and ethical attitudes toward non-believers. Forced conversion, persecution, and ethnic cleansing is far far too common and at times prevalent to make excuses of just 'not necessarily indicative of the actual texts.'

You have yet, on this thread or others, to provide a text that explicitly prescribes forced conversions or any injustice people have committed in the name of Christianity. Until you provide such a text on this or any other thread you have so steered to this issue, I will refrain from responding. You speak of rogue and I having an agenda and yet it seems you cannot comprehend that the people who forced conversions et al would also have an agenda more fitting of twisting Scripture into agreement. This speaks to your bias and agenda.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The acts of the followers are not necessarily indicative of the actual texts. You seem completely unwilling to accept that basic notion.

I am no defender of Islam [or any religion] but one might make the same observations about Islam which is routinely depicted as a violent religion that forces conversion, has done so from its inception, and is mandated to do so.

We all agree that Islam [like Christianity] has, on occasion, been violent and brutal and has justified its brutality as divinely ordained/instructed. However, that is true of many religions [especially in the ANE] .

There are various examples from the ancient near east where one group was divinely ordained to go and take the lands of another group. Evidence may be found in the inscriptions from various from Assyrian kings, Moabite stele, and of course the Hebrew texts. In these examples the warfare was linked to a particularist concept of religion where a patron deity cared only about his own followers and whose commandments entitled [or even obliged] those followers to subdue and/or destroy their neighbours. The belief in their deity's superiority and power was further confirmed by their victory.

It appears that the early Arab conquerors saw their "holy war" along very similar lines. Christianity likewise regularly viewed its military ambitions as being divinely sanctioned [the call by the Eastern Church in the early 600s for the "holy duty" of Christian men" against the "fire-worshippers" comes to mind]. And Christianity's continued historical military and colonial successes were considered to be further "proof" that Christians had "God on their side".

The mere providing of lists of cherry picked quotes from Islamic texts or individuals really tells us nothing about the origins and history of that religion within the socio-political situation prevailing in that region in the early 600s.

However, that task, despite his alleged hours spent reading in a university library, appears totally beyond the capabilities of our resident faux Islamicist/Arabist.

[Diogenes]

I am no defender of Islam [or any religion] but one might make the same observations about Islam which is routinely depicted as a violent religion that forces conversion, has done so from its inception, and is mandated to do so.

We all agree that Islam [like Christianity] has, on occasion, been violent and brutal and has justified its brutality as divinely ordained/instructed. However, that is true of many religions [especially in the ANE] .

There are various examples from the ancient near east where one group was divinely ordained to go and take the lands of another group. Evidence may be found in the inscriptions from various from Assyrian kings, Moabite stele, and of course the Hebrew texts. In these examples the warfare was linked to a particularist concept of religion where a patron deity cared only about his own followers and whose commandments entitled [or even obliged] those followers to subdue and/or destroy their neighbours. The belief in their deity's superiority and power was further confirmed by their victory.

It appears that the early Arab conquerors saw their "holy war" along very similar lines. Christianity likewise regularly viewed its military ambitions as being divinely sanctioned [the call by the Eastern Church in the early 600s for the "holy duty" of Christian men" against the "fire-worshippers" comes to mind]. And Christianity's continued historical military and colonial successes were considered to be further "proof" that Christians had "God on their side".

The mere providing of lists of cherry picked quotes from Islamic texts or individuals really tells us nothing about the origins and history of that religion within the socio-political situation prevailing in that region in the early 600s.

However, that task, despite his alleged hours spent reading in a university library, appears totally beyond the capabilities of our resident faux Islamicist/Arabist.

Seeing as the actions of Muhammad are considered prescriptive and that you don't seem to be willing to condemn the practice of child marriage (including Muhammad's consummating a marriage with Aisha when she was 9), there is hardly comparison of Islam with Christianity. In the least, Christians have no problem condemning leaders of immorality as the Protestant Reformation showed.


Feel free to cite verse where Jesus advocated war with supporting justification and reasoning. The sword verse are regularly misapplied on this forum.

[shunyadragon]

You have yet, on this thread or others, to provide a text that explicitly prescribes forced conversions or any injustice people have committed in the name of Christianity. Until you provide such a text on this or any other thread you have so steered to this issue, I will refrain from responding. You speak of rogue and I having an agenda and yet it seems you cannot comprehend that the people who forced conversions et al would also have an agenda more fitting of twisting Scripture into agreement. This speaks to your bias and agenda.

I provided that in the parable, but you and others try to wiggle and dodge to try and avoid the facts. I also provided a specific reference to 'Conversion by the Sword' and the major churches committing forced conversion in missionary schools of Native Americans. 'Duck, Bob and Weave' and avoiding the historical fact they ALL believed they were following the Bible and doing the work of God. and Jesus.

The problem remains the lack of guidance in ambiguous ancient tribal scripture that does not forbid 'forced conversion or slavery.'

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Seeing as the actions of Muhammad are considered prescriptive and that you don't seem to be willing to condemn the practice of child marriage (including Muhammad's consummating a marriage with Aisha when she was 9), there is hardly comparison of Islam with Christianity.

There is a direct comparison with Christianity insofar as child betrothals/marriages are concerned. Just one example from many, Maud/Matilda [born 1102] was eight when she was betrothed to the Holy Roman Emperor Henry V and was married by the time she was twelve.

Nor can the veracity of the consummation of Muhammed's marriage to Aisha be confirmed given that her alleged account is recorded in a text compiled around two hundred years after her death.

Furthermore this was a society that kept no birth records and did not celebrate birthdays, and so ages would have been estimated. Again, and although we have no confirmed verifiable evidence, it is alleged that Aisha had previously been considered in marriage to another, which suggests that by that society's [and indeed that of many others] definition of adulthood [i.e. the onset of puberty] she was of marriageable age.

In the least, Christians have no problem condemning leaders of immorality as the Protestant Reformation showed.

Yet the various continuing scandals surrounding immorality have continued. Unfortunately, authority/power has a distinct tendency to lead to corruption.

The sword verse are regularly misapplied on this forum.

On what or whose authority are those verses are "regularly misapplied"? These verses lend themselves to interpretation and one interpretation is no less valid than another.

[Diogenes]

I provided that in the parable, but you and others try to wiggle and dodge to try and avoid the facts.

The fact is you can't read the parable. The parable is about the Jewish religious leaders and the transfer from the Jews to the Gentiles. It's hardly a complicated parable yet you can't even detail how it applies to non-believers. The landowner is the God the Father, the son is Jesus, the initial tenants are the Jewish leadership and Israel, the second group of tenants is the Gentiles. No where in the parable does it say to kill non-believers.

I also provided a specific reference to 'Conversion by the Sword' and the major churches committing forced conversion in missionary schools of Native Americans. 'Duck, Bob and Weave' and avoiding the historical fact they ALL believed they were following the Bible and doing the work of God. and Jesus.

No where have I denied the actions of Christians in the past. You have yet to show the texts that would justify their actions.

[Diogenes]

There is a direct comparison with Christianity insofar as child betrothals/marriages are concerned. Just one example from many, Maud/Matilda [born 1102] was eight when she was betrothed to the Holy Roman Emperor Henry V and was married by the time she was twelve.

And there are not any lifespan issues that would lead people in the past to have different considerations of adulthood or marry early in a females capacity to reproduce. Christians also have stopped such a practice whereas it continues in Islam.

Nor can the veracity of the consummation of Muhammed's marriage to Aisha be confirmed given that her alleged account is recorded in a text compiled around two hundred years after her death.

I assume you not accept Plutarch's work to be valid given the time transpired.

Furthermore this was a society that kept no birth records and did not celebrate birthdays, and so ages would have been estimated. Again, and although we have no confirmed verifiable evidence, it is alleged that Aisha had previously been considered in marriage to another, which suggests that by that society's [and indeed that of many others] definition of adulthood [i.e. the onset of puberty] she was of marriageable age.

The text seems pretty definitive bout the age, I"m not surprised you're trying to avoid the text. You could cite those who disagree with al-Bukhari. It's also strange you think age could no about accounted for in the past or that birth certificates would be required.

that the Prophet (ﷺ) married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that `Aisha remained with the Prophet (ﷺ) for nine years (i.e. till his death).

In fact it seems the marriage is reiterated in 69,70, & 93 as being consummated at age nine. If you think Aisha was in puberty at 9, that would be for you to prove.

On what or whose authority are those verses are "regularly misapplied"? These verses lend themselves to interpretation and one interpretation is no less valid than another.

As I'm sure I've said before, I have no interest discussing interpretation of Scripture with you.