Common Misconceptions About Islam

[discipleofJesus]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=92550

 

[Pure81]

If islam was forced onto people why haven’t people now converted into other religion?
why in a country like usa there are so many muslims when it is a free country, say wht you want to say and beilive in what you want to beilive and you are DEFFENTLY off non-muslim, why do you find muslims there? and not only that…wht are there so many people converting into islam? not by force but out of their own will? they read about islam and they convert? why do christians convert to islam? have you ever seen a muslim converting into christianity no, and you never will, and you won’t find muslims converting into other religions…why? there must be a reason why people are going this way and not that…

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Pure81:

If islam was forced onto people why haven’t people now converted into other religion?
why in a country like usa there are so many muslims when it is a free country, say wht you want to say and beilive in what you want to beilive and you are DEFFENTLY off non-muslim, why do you find muslims there? and not only that…wht are there so many people converting into islam? not by force but out of their own will? they read about islam and they convert? why do christians convert to islam? have you ever seen a muslim converting into christianity no, and you never will, and you won’t find muslims converting into other religions…why? there must be a reason why people are going this way and not that…

You’ll of course know that most of the Muslims in the US are immigrants. Of the converts, two categories dominate: women who marry Muslims, and BLACK CONVICTS.

As for why Muslims remain Muslims even after their forebears were forced to convert - this is a psychological question: most religious people don’t convert out of their religion. They inherit the religion of their parents and carry it through their lives and pass it on to their children.

It is also not true that Muslims don’t convert to other religions. The numbers are kept down by the punishment for apostacy in Muslim countries. If you allowed religious freedom you’d see a whole lot more apostacy.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Gurrato Alaien,
I don’t care what certain Orientalists say. To believe them without looking at the evidence is merely the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam. I prefer the historical facts; particularly the testimonies of the Muslims. Several sahih hadiths clearly state that Muhammad’s aim was to spread Islam by the sword OR subjugation. In the latter, some of the subjugated converted purely to escape subjugation. Neither spread by the sword or subjugation is something to be proud of.

The history of Islamic conquests is well known: look at the havoc the Muslims did in India. It is not coincidence that throughout history, Islam has spread through conquered countries. There are few countries where Islam spread in a major way without conquests or military actions. There are exceptions like the South Indian coast and some parts of the West African where Islam was spread by Arab traders. Nevertheless, in Africa, once Islam took hold, Jihad against the pagans was widely practised.

Like some have pointed out; even the supposedly peaceful conversion in South East Asia was accompanied by conquests. The rulers converted to Islam – then the spread was coincident with conquest. What happened to the Hindu Majapahit Empire if not violently overthrown by Islamic Sultanates? This spread of Islam following military conquest is echoed in the West African empires – the rulers converted to Islam and then as their empires grew, so did the spread of Islam.

One might ask whether, following military conquest, the spread of Islam occurred peacefully and without coercion. The overall historical evidence is very much against peaceful, non-coercive conversion.

Sahih Bukhari 1:2:24:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah’s Apostle said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.”

Sahih Bukhari 4:52:196:
Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah 's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)"

Sahih Bukhari 4:53:386:
Narrated Jubair bin Haiya: 'Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans. … When we reached the land of the enemy, the representative of Khosrau came out with forty-thousand warriors, and an interpreter got up saying, “Let one of you talk to me!” Al-Mughira replied, “Ask whatever you wish.” The other asked, “Who are you?” Al-Mughira replied, "We are some people from the Arabs; we led a hard, miserable, disastrous life: we used to suck the hides and the date stones from hunger; we used to wear clothes made up of fur of camels and hair of goats, and to worship trees and stones. While we were in this state, the Lord of the Heavens and the Earths, Elevated is His Remembrance and Majestic is His Highness, sent to us from among ourselves a Prophet whose father and mother are known to us. Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- “Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master.”…

Sahih Muslim 3:4294
“Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from then and desist from fighting against them. … If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from the Jizya [tax]. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.”

Thus, it is clear that the spread of Islam was mainly by the sword.

Ciudate,
Cid

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

As an aside, one might ask how a prophet like Muhammad could have been mistaken about the phantom Byzantine Army in Tabuk. Bear in mind Tabuk was in Byzantine territory, so the Muslims were technically the aggressors.

Did Allah forget to tell Muhammad that the Byzantine Army wasn’t in Tabuk? Or did Gibril forget?

One notes that in the entire history of Islam, the Byzantines never once attacked Arabia. They attacked places like Egypt in attempts to retrieve their lost territories, but they never once attacked the Muslims. All the conflicts were either on Byzantine soil or lands conquered by the Arabs from the Byzantines. Reading the history of the Byzantine-Arab wars it is clear the Byzantines were on the defensive and the Arabs were the aggressors. So much for the Religion of Peace.

Ciudate,
Cid

 

[discipleofJesus]

Here’s some more

Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0033:
“It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.”

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 80:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
“The Verse:–“You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.” means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.”

The verse it is referring to is Sura 3:110 in the Quran

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Chains on their necks until they embrace Islam, eh? Very peaceful. I’m sure some Muslims will claim that technically that is not conversion by the sword but by neckties.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

1. Islam means peace.
Islam comes from the root word ‘salaam’, which means peace. It also means submitting one’s will to Allah (swt). Thus Islam is a religion of peace, which is acquired by submitting one’s will to the will of the Supreme Creator, Allah (swt).

Islam means submission.

2. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace.
Each and every human being in this world is not in favour of maintaining peace
and harmony. There are many, who would disrupt it for their own vested interests. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace. It is precisely for this reason that we have the police who use force against criminals and antisocial elements to maintain peace in the country. Islam promotes peace. At the same time, Islam exhorts it followers to fight where there is oppression. The fight against oppression may, at times, require the use of force. In Islam force can only be used to promote peace and justice.

Hmmm… I suppose the Muslims were oppressed all the way to Poitiers and Vienna (twice), and all the way to the Deccan plains.

I’m sure Islam promotes peace all the way through killing millions of Hindus and Sikhs in India. Every time a kafir dies the world becomes just that little bit more peaceful.

3. Opinion of historian De Lacy O’Leary.
The best reply to the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword is given by the noted historian De Lacy O’Leary in the book “Islam at the cross road” (Page 8):
“History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated.”

Actually, O’Leary’s proposition is that the Ummayyads preferred to subjugate rather than convert as they wanted the jizyah. But conversion occurred due to non-Muslims being persecuted and humiliated.

Certainly these Arabs were not fanatics who tried to force their religion on the conquered: they preferred them to remain toilers as before and themselves to live on the produce of their labour. Such was the system laid down in the “Constitution of ’Umar”, an apocryphal production of later date, but indicating in general outline what was the earlier Arab policy. The picture sometimes given of a host of fanatical Arabs rushing forward with a sword in one hand, a Qur’an in the other, and forcing people to turn Muslims or be killed is very far from fact. The cynical Arab is not inclined to be a fanatic. There have been plenty of fanatical Muslims, but they were not Arabs but converts of other races who were converted to Islam at a later date. The Arabs did not force the people they conquered to embrace their religion, they left the conquered population to follow their own religion, laws, customs, and use their own languages. They were to be tribute producing and the Arab ideal was to live at case on the product of their labour.

“How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs By De Lacy O’Leary D.D. 1949, 1979 ed. Pg 94.”

4. Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years.

Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. The Muslims in Spain never used the sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims. There was not a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the adhan, that is the call for prayers.

Actually, the Muslims didn’t have the right to be in Southern Spain in the first place – they were invaders.

This idea that the Muslims in Spain were peaceful tolerant people is not true. They were as barbaric and cruel as anyone else. secularislam.org/articles/bostom3.htm

5. 14 million Arabs are Coptic Christians.
Muslims were the lords of Arabia for 1400 years. For a few years the British ruled, and for a few years the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians
i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.

Do you think the treatment of Copts in Egypt is something to be proud of? The fact that they were not all killed but were persecuted for centuries is not something to be proud of.

The population of the Copts decreased from 9 million at the time of the Arabs conquest 641 A. D. approximately 700,000 at the early 1900’s. copts.net/history.asp

Cont.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

6. More than 80% non-Muslims in India.

The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword.

There were simply too many Hindus to kill. geocities.com/Colosseum/Stadium/5142/negislamindia.html

The number of non-Muslims in India, by right, should be 100%. This 80% is false anyway, because you didn’t add Pakistan and Bangladesh which were carved out of India during the Partition to appease the Muslims.

7. Indonesia and Malaysia.

Indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of Muslims in the world. The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. May one ask, “Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia?”

The rulers converted to Islam, and then the conquests started. What happened to the Hindu Majapahit Empire?

8. East Coast of Africa.

Similarly, Islam has spread rapidly on the East Coast of Africa. One may again ask, if Islam was spread by the sword, “Which Muslim army went to the East Coast of Africa?”

I suppose you never heard of the Sultanate of Zanzibar?

cont.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

9. Thomas Carlyle.

The famous historian, Thomas Carlyle, in his book “Heroes and Hero worship”, refers to this misconception about the spread of Islam: “The sword indeed, but where will you get your sword? Every new opinion, at its starting is precisely in a minority of one. In one man’s head alone. There it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all men. That he takes a sword and try to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can.”

I don’t think you should have quoted Carlyle. It is obvious you didn’t read Carlyle so you don’t know his real views. You didn’t quote Carlyle fully. He did write quite a bit about Muhammad, not all complementary. This is what he wrote a few lines before your quoted passage:

“Much has been said of Mahomet’s propagating his Religion by the sword. It is no doubt far nobler what we have to boast of the Christian Religion, that it propagated itself peaceably in the way of preaching and conviction.”

He was saying that Christianity was far nobler than Islam because it propagated itself peaceful by preaching and conviction. Islam did spread by the sword. Carlyle’s contention was that the sword alone is of little use unless backed by an idea – and that idea, religion, was the reason why Muhammad was successful.

Carlyle didn’t care that Muhammad conquered by the sword – he was a believer in the forces of nature: i.e. the survival of the fittest. If by the sword, then so be it, seems to be his view.

“I care little about the sword: I will allow a thing to struggle for itself in this world, with any sword or tongue or implement it has, or can lay hold of. We will let it preach, and pamphleteer, and fight, and to the uttermost bestir itself, and do, beak and claws, whatsoever is in it; very sure that it will, in the long-run, conquer nothing which does not deserve to be conquered.”

Read that last phrase, ‘it will, in the long-run, conquer nothing which des not deserve to be conquered.’

I just wished you’re read Carlyle instead of merely copy-pasting the Islamists’ propaganda. This is also what Carlyle says about Islam:

“Mahomet’s Creed we called a kind of Christianity…The truth of it is embedded in portentous error and falsehood; but the truth of it makes it be believed, not the falsehood: it succeeded by its truth. A bastard kind of Christianity,…”

This is what Carlyle says about Muhammad:

“He has faults enough. The man was an uncultured semi-barbarous Son of Nature, much of the Bedouin still clinging to him: we must take him for that.

He is the insincere man: smooth-polished, respectable in some times and places; inoffensive, says nothing harsh to anybody; most cleanly, —just as carbonic acid is, which is death and poison. We will not praise Mahomet’s moral precepts as always of the superfinest sort; yet it can be said that there is always a tendency to good in them; that they are the true dictates of a heart aiming towards what is just and true. The sublime forgiveness of Christianity, turning of the other cheek when the one has been smitten, is not here: you are to revenge yourself, but it is to be in measure, not overmuch, or beyond justice.”

This is what Carlyle says about the Quran:

“I must say, it is as toilsome reading as I ever undertook. A wearisome confused jumble, crude, incondite; endless iterations, long-windedness, entanglement; most crude, incondite; —insupportable stupidity, in short!

We said “stupid:” yet natural stupidity is by no means the character of Mahomet’s Book; it is natural uncultivation rather. The man has not studied speaking; in the haste and pressure of continual fighting, has not time to mature himself into fit speech. The panting breathless haste and vehemence of a man struggling in the thick of battle for life and salvation; this is the mood he is in! A headlong haste; for very magnitude of meaning, he cannot get himself articulated into words. The successive utterances of a soul in that mood, colored by the various vicissitudes of three-and-twenty years; now well uttered, now worse: this is the Koran.

Yet with every allowance, one feels it difficult to see how any mortal ever could consider this Koran as a Book written in Heaven, too good for the Earth; as a well-written book, or indeed as a book at all; and not a bewildered rhapsody; written, so far as writing goes, as badly as almost any book ever was!”

Thus, far from proving your point, Carlyle disproves Islam.

Ciubate,
Cid

 

[Neverland]

Dear Rodrigo,

You said:

The rulers converted to Islam, and then the conquests started. What happened to the Hindu Majapahit Empire?

Just want to add: Padjajaran (King Siliwangi - A Hindu) was “killed” by his son who converted to Islam, Kian Santang (the folklore said he was MOKSA, but you know, if we learnt that He went to the jungle to avoid his son with his faithful servants, then disappeared - hmmm).

Demak Kingdom was also expansive.

The tactic used was like this:
When they were weak, they were peaceful and was very dilligent in converting people through marriage etc. Then after becoming strong, they rebelled. Very simple.

Neverland

P.S. But the greatest kingdom in Indonesia were Sriwijaya (Buddhist Kingdom) and Majapahit (Hindu Kingdom).

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Rodrigo Bivar:

As an aside, one might ask how a prophet like Muhammad could have been mistaken about the phantom Byzantine Army in Tabuk. Bear in mind Tabuk was in Byzantine territory, so the Muslims were technically the aggressors.

Did Allah forget to tell Muhammad that the Byzantine Army wasn’t in Tabuk? Or did Gibril forget?

One notes that in the entire history of Islam, the Byzantines never once attacked Arabia. They attacked places like Egypt in attempts to retrieve their lost territories, but they never once attacked the Muslims. All the conflicts were either on Byzantine soil or lands conquered by the Arabs from the Byzantines. Reading the history of the Byzantine-Arab wars it is clear the Byzantines were on the defensive and the Arabs were the aggressors. So much for the Religion of Peace.

Ciudate,
Cid

The dangers of writing something off the top of one’s head.

Correction: Tabuk was near the border of the Byzantine Empire but not within it. However, Muhammad, after failing to locate the phantom Byzantine army, invaded the Christian tribes allied to the Byzantines - so the Muslims were the aggressors after all while the Byzantines were probably unaware of the incident - it was not noted in their records.

Reference for the Christian tribes: Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum
(The Sealed Nectar) By Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri pg 193.

Ciubate,
Rodrigo Bivar

 

[discipleofJesus]

gurrato alaien:

1. 14 million Arabs are Coptic Christians.
   Muslims were the lords of Arabia for 1400 years. For a few years the British ruled, and for a few years the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians
   i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.

Rodrigo Bivar:

Do you think the treatment of Copts in Egypt is something to be proud of? The fact that they were not all killed but were persecuted for centuries is not something to be proud of.

The population of the Copts decreased from 9 million at the time of the Arabs conquest 641 A. D. approximately 700,000 at the early 1900’s. copts.net/history.asp

Good points Rodrigo Bivar.

By the way gurrato alaien, Copts are **not ** Arabs!
Copts are the indigenous people of Egypt.

“Who are the Copts ?
The word Copt is an English word taken from the Arabic word Gibt or Gypt. The Arabs after their conquest of Egypt in 641 A.D. called the indigenous population of Egypt as Gypt from the Greek word Egyptos or Egypt. The Greek word Egyptos came from the ancient Egyptian words Ha-Ka-Ptah or the house or temple of the spirit of God Ptah, one of the major ancient Egyptian Gods. The word Copt or Coptic simply means Egyptian, however the Muslim population of Egypt calls themselves Arabs. In contemporary usage, the word Copt or Coptic refers to the Christian population of Egypt.”
copts.net/history.asp

 

[Ortho]

exoflare:

There is only one point in your whole list that I see is just flat out wrong… Islam most definitely was spread by the sword.

Islam was not spread to Indonesia by the sword.

 

[Ortho]

straightpath:

I think that you deliberately refuse to accept a truth that is put before you.The poster has given his evidences from those who have researched and know the history. Where are your eveidences rather than just repeat “Islam most definitely was spread by the sword”.
In Pre crusade Europe Jews and Christians lived in peace and practiced their own faith,all the lands owned and run by muslims were highly wealthy and prosperous even for the non muslims, until some 10 000 dimwits decided to go on a rampage.They even killed thousands of Jews on the way.Whatever was not christian was an infidel at the time of the Crusades and blood ran knee high.Now that is spreading by the sword. Even the most Spanish of Spanish who were born muslim at the time were either massacred or forced to convert.Same sh** happened in the Philipines too which was Muslim now was that not by the sword that they are now country men of king Philip.
Peace
straightpath

Just show us evidence that Islam was forced on Indonesia by the sword.

 

[Neverland]

Dear Ortho,

You said;
Just show us evidence that Islam was forced on Indonesia by the sword.

First of All, don’t read Sejarah Nasional Indonesia. It was written by moslems, don’t you think so?
Let us see what happened in Padjajaran.
You are an Indonesian, Read this:

pikiran-rakyat.com/cetak/1104/22/teropong/lainnya2.htm

But see how wicked the tactic used:

First step:
Marriage between Prabu Siliwangi and Subang Larang, the daughter of a moslem.

Second step:
Indoctrination of the son/daughter about Islam

Third step:
Subang Larang made her son/daughter go out of the palace to learn about Islam → because Prabu Siliwangi was a Hindu.

Fourth step:
Kian Santang, one of the children of Prabu Siliwangi, who has been strong, force his Father to be a moslem.

Read this:
pikiran-rakyat.com/cetak/0503/21/0109.htm

Fifth step:
Prabu Siliwangi was chased to a forest, Sancang Forest, and there, it was said that Prabu Siliwangi moksa.

A son chased his own Father because of a religion has been very cruel.
Now you want to say that Islam was not spread by sword in Indonesia?

Well, you are right, it was not spread only with sword in Indonesia. It was done by soft tactic like marriage too.

Neverland

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

It’s perhaps coincidental that everywhere Muslims conquer, Islamization occurs. The Demak Sultanate, for instance, which conquered Java and chased out the last Hindu Kingdoms to Bali. The Demise of the Hindu Majapahit Empire coincided with the spread of Islam. If not conversion by the sword, the sword sure played a big part. No conquest = no Islam.

indonesiaphoto.com/content/view/30/46/
Like the introduction of Indian civilization, the process of Islamization is obscure because of the lack of adequate historical records and archeological evidence. The archipelago was not invaded by outsiders and forcibly converted. Yet states that had converted to Islam often waged war against those that adhered to the older, Hindu-Buddhist traditions.

In 1605 the ruler of Gowa in southern Sulawesi (Celebes) converted to Islam and subsequently imposed Islam on neighboring rulers.

 

[MugenOne]

The spread of Islam was driven by increasing trade links outside of the archipelago; in general, traders and the royalty of major kingdoms were the first to adopt the new religion. Y’all know, royalists were greedy and power hunger. They were blinded by the promise of supreme power, wealthy, and eternal life in paradise. Malaysian/Indonesian history has never been peaceful not even after peaceful conversion.

 

[Pure81]

Rodrigo Bivar:

You’ll of course know that most of the Muslims in the US are immigrants. Of the converts, two categories dominate: women who marry Muslims, and BLACK CONVICTS.

As for why Muslims remain Muslims even after their forebears were forced to convert - this is a psychological question: most religious people don’t convert out of their religion. They inherit the religion of their parents and carry it through their lives and pass it on to their children.

It is also not true that Muslims don’t convert to other religions. The numbers are kept down by the punishment for apostacy in Muslim countries. If you allowed religious freedom you’d see a whole lot more apostacy.

Well #1 atleast in islam there is no difference bewteen races, so sorry if it hadn’t come to my notice that most converts were of a lower race , but in my beilifs, they are all equal, now in regards to what you said about islam killing those who abandoned it for another religion well first i would like you to know as a muslim living in the muslim world i haven’t met these muslims who are scared that they would be killed to leave islam, or why else would i defend it on the ineternet when no one would recognize me, as a woman in islam i might feel opressed why not take it out on the internet and set my beilifs free? because islam is a true religion, and about killing someone when they abonden their religion here is something our of the bible which i would like you to explain to me

Quoted from the book by Sam Harris:
“The End of Faith , Religion, Terror , and the Future of Reason”

quote from the Bible:

'If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother , or your son or daughter , or the spouse whom you embrace , or your most intimate friend , tries to secretly seduce you , saying, “Let us go and serve other gods,” unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the people surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throught the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God…
(Deuteronomy 13:7 - 11)"

…does not seem like christians accept their own converting into other religions…

 

[discipleofJesus]

Pure81:

have you ever seen a muslim converting into christianity no, and you never will

Of course there are Muslims who have converted to Christianity.
See for example answering-islam.org/Testimonies/index.html

Some famous former Muslims who became Christians include Abdul Saleeb, Daniel Ali, Emir Caner and Ergun Caner, each of them author or co-authored at least one book on Islam.

The Islamic punishment for leaving Islam is death.
It is possible that there are many former Muslims who converted to Christianity but who, out of fear of the death, live their lives outwardly as Muslims but are inwardly Christians. Not only in countries where the majority of the population is Muslim, but also in the west, since they could also get killed by a Muslim in the west.

see for example
chapter 5 ‘Hidden Disciples’
answering-islam.org.uk/Books…stasy/chap5.htm

Pure81:

and you won’t find muslims converting into other religions

Yes you will, see for example apostatesofislam.com/apostates.htm

The following quotes from you were addressed to Rodrigo Bivar, but I would like to reply to some of them (Rodrigo can reply in more detail and correct me if he thinks I am wrong)

Pure81:

Well #1 atleast in islam there is no difference bewteen races, so sorry if it hadn’t come to my notice that most converts were of a lower race.

I’m pretty sure his point was that a lot of the converts to Islam are convicts, and he wasn’t being racist or saying they are an inferior race.

Pure81:

now in regards to what you said about islam killing those who abandoned it for another religion well first i would like you to know as a muslim living in the muslim world i haven’t met these muslims who are scared that they would be killed to leave islam.

ummm the point is if someone did convert it is there is a good chance that he will not be open about because he will fear being killed. So I wouldn’t expect you to have met a Muslim who converted to Christianity and who told you that he fears being killed.

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 9, Book 84, Number 58:
“Narrated Abu Burda:
Abu Musa said… Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu’adh asked, “Who is this (man)?” Abu Muisa said, “He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism.” Then Abu Muisa requested Mu’adh to sit down but Mu’adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers…”

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:
“Narrated 'Ikrima:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn ‘Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’”

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 9, Book 84, Number 64:
“Narrated 'Ali:
Whenever I tell you a narration from Allah’s Apostle, by Allah, I would rather fall down from the sky than ascribe a false statement to him, but if I tell you something between me and you (not a Hadith) then it was indeed a trick (i.e., I may say things just to cheat my enemy). No doubt I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game.** So, where-ever you find them, kill them, for who-ever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection**.”

Can you imagine how scary that is? When there are narrations like this in the Hadith? For someone to be open about leaving Islam when your prophet commanded “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” and “where-ever you find them, kill them” and “for who-ever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection"?