There is no fighting in Islam to force people to convert.
There is fighting (if an Islamic state exists) to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to embrace Islamâin other words, to ensure that they have the freedom of religion! Islam will fight to establish justice on the earth. I donât really think thatâs âtaking overâ and it doesnât mean establishing Shariâah everywhere, or ever imposing it on anyone who doesnât want it. But establishing it for those who want it, sure, by freeing minorities from persecution, sure.
Here are some recently reported - and documented - happenings:
In Mogul, Chaldean Christians have been beaten and attacked in their homes. If one of them is seen making the sign of the cross in public, Muslims have beaten them. Christians are not permitted to place a cross in public view. A Chaldean archbishop was attacked and killed by Muslims in northern Iraq not long ago, and Christian homes attacked â all in Muslim majority areas. An Italian Muslim reporter recently converted to Christianity and was baptized. He immediately received a number of death threats and fatwas calling for his death, all from Islamic sources. A man in Afghanistan was put to death not long ago for having converted to Christianity. There are plenty more such happenings that have been documented and archived. These are not fictitious at all; they are real.
The first part of your statement says it well: âThere is fighting to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to embrace Islam --â; but the next part betrays a very different understanding: âin other words, to ensure that they have the freedom of religion!â
In light of the actions reported above, the only way that I can make sense of your claim to be acting on behalf of âfreedom of religionâ is that this phrase means that a person is free to embrace Islam, but nothing else! Those who do not embrace it are obliged to pay a tax, the jyzra, and are forced to accept severe limitations in the practice of their faith - harassment and even physical attacks, with little or no protection from the Muslim authorities. And if they protest, they are attacked again. If they refuse to pay the jyzra, they will be threatened severely, even with death, unless they leave and move elsewhere. [By the way, Chaldean Christians have been in that area for 2000 years, much longer than any Muslim.]
This is not our meaning of âfreedom of religionâ, which Islamic sources so often cite to justify their position. In effect, using this phrase in this way confuses, blurs, and muddles the discussion. If this is done in good faith, then let the truth emerge: your âfreedom of religionâ does not at all correspond to our âfreedom of religionâ. If this equivocation is done deliberately, then there is an element of dishonesty and deception that vitiates the discussion, and there will be no honest and good faith result.
I would hope that this second possibility is not the fact; we have to continue to observe the actions and behavior of Islamic communities who are in the majority in their areas in order to decide. So far, the record is not encouraging. Muslims demand freedom of religion for themseves when in the minority, but so far do not extend that same freedom to others when they are in control. Thatâs the historical record.
We ask and expect Muslim authorities to grant to those of other faiths the same freedom and tolerance Muslims demand - and receive - from us Western countries. But Muslim authorities, as in Iran and parts of Indonesia, have not and do not do so, no matter what they say to the contrary. So minorities in those countries are not freed from persecution â unless they become Muslim.
Such pressures to become Muslim contradict the original meaning of âfreedom of religionâ.
:knight1:
kpeople:
