Did Islam force conversions at the point of the sword?

[Holly3278]

Hey everyone. I have often heard from pro-Islamic sources that Islam did not force conversions at the point of the sword. They often quote the verse from the Koran that says there is no compulsion in religion. However, I am not sure whether to believe them or not. Were people forced to convert to Islam at the point of the sword or not? Please provide sources.

 

[VivaCristoRey27]

The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed by Hilaire Belloc (from The Great Heresies).

God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades by Rodney Stark

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Hey everyone. I have often heard from pro-Islamic sources that Islam did not force conversions at the point of the sword. They often quote the verse from the Koran that says there is no compulsion in religion. However, I am not sure whether to believe them or not. Were people forced to convert to Islam at the point of the sword or not? Please provide sources.

They lie to you.

Islamic armies, from Saudi Arabia, swallowed up over half of the Christian world. Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople were all great Christian cities that were overwhelmed by the Muslims. Christians were slaughtered in various methods, many were crucified. Others were forced to convert to avoid the heavy jizya tax and being subjected to dhimmitude. Others fled toward the West.

Not to mention that areas like Spain and Sicily, which today we consider part of the Christian West, were also under Islamic occupation.

That is the whole reason why Pope Urban II called for the crusades. It was a defensive reaction against the merciless Islamic onslaught.

 

[aicirt]

THE POLITICALLY INNCORECT GUIDE TO ISLAM is about 270 pages long and gives a good account of how Muslims “converted”.

Consider their actions at the present time: openly screaming for the death of all Jews, the destruction of a 5,000 year old Buddha even after the UN tried to deter the bombing, a Muslim woman recently videoed advocating the use of sex slaves (that would be our girls and sons) so that Muslim men would not be tempted to work out their lust on Muslim women (what religion advocates such actions?) Does anyone really think these deeds are limited to our times?

 

[seeker57]

The spread of Islam had as much to do with its appeal to the lower classes and the disenfranchised as military force.

Under Islam, all people are supposed to be treated equally, including women. Mohammed was substantially influenced by early Christianity.

Of course, in real life, I would argue the ideal has been overshadowed by secular traditions, especially in the Middle East.

But I would be cautious about painting all Muslims with the same brush. That would be as incorrect as painting all Christians with the same brush.

Peace,

Seeker

 

[Varicose_Brains]

Hey everyone. I have often heard from pro-Islamic sources that Islam did not force conversions at the point of the sword. They often quote the verse from the Koran that says there is no compulsion in religion. However, I am not sure whether to believe them or not. Were people forced to convert to Islam at the point of the sword or not? Please provide sources.

All religions have forced people to convert in the past, including the Catholic Church (and the Protestant Churches). The Middle Ages are replete with horrific examples of abuses of human rights by religion.

 

[Poof]

All religions have forced people to convert in the past, including the Catholic Church (and the Protestant Churches). The Middle Ages are replete with horrific examples of abuses of human rights by religion.

You may be right. But Islam is a totally different case. We’re talking about islamic armies conquering a HUGE chunk of the world and threatening conversion by the sword wide scale. And that’s a fact, dont go believing pro-islamic sources. Those guys can twist history anytime they want to: Jesus’ crucifiction, the Christians starting the crusades, the aisha story. It’s all a bunch of baloney. Do we catholics hide our previous mistakes in the past: the abuses during the crusades, the inquisition, etc? NO, we don’t! We stand by history.

 

[Poof]

Besides, both the inquisition and the abuses done during the crusades can be justified to a certain level. Islam’s mass “conversion by the sword” on the other hand was completely wrong and barbaric.

 

[Varicose_Brains]

Besides, both the inquisition and the abuses done during the crusades can be justified to a certain level. Islam’s mass “conversion by the sword” on the other hand was completely wrong and barbaric.

Er, okay. Killing innocent people is fine for your religion but not for Muslims? How can you possibly justify the torture and death of tens of thousands of people “on a certain level”?

 

[Poof]

The spread of Islam had as much to do with its appeal to the lower classes and the disenfranchised as military force.

Under Islam, all people are supposed to be treated equally, including women. Mohammed was substantially influenced by early Christianity.

Of course, in real life, I would argue the ideal has been overshadowed by secular traditions, especially in the Middle East.

But I would be cautious about painting all Muslims with the same brush. That would be as incorrect as painting all Christians with the same brush.

Peace,

Seeker

You have one bunch of moslems blowing themselves up in the name of God and you have another bunch condemning the other group, living peaceful lives and showing generosity to others. Really, it’s impossible to pin-point the real Islam.

There are NUMEROUS, BLATANT, texts in the Koran urging moslems to kill infidels.
and there are also numerous texts claming freedom of religion, etc.

In some countries, Christians can co-exist with moslems peacefully. While in other countries, Islam is pressed on the people. No one can openly convert, no one can freely admit he is Christian, etc (Like in egypt).

You have two groups with enough evidence to back up their actions. How can dub one group as false and the other as the truth? Islam is full of contradictories.

 

[Poof]

Er, okay. Killing innocent people is fine for your religion but not for Muslims? How can you possibly justify the torture and death of tens of thousands of people “on a certain level”?

I said “justified to a certain level”, not completely justified.

*During the reign of Ferdinand and Isabela, there were a number of Jews and Moors who were baptized catholic and risen to high positions in the goverment and the church (without believing in christian doctrine). These false converts were a huge threat to Spain. Isabel needed to differentiate true christians from the fakes and due to this, the Inquisition was founded. The inquistion was solely founded with good intentions, supposedly, it was a court which would examine evidence and judge whether the person was a faithful christian or a heretic. However, at the beginning of the Inquisition, abuses were made. Innocent people suffered and torture was used frequently. Because of this, the pope appointed a new grand inquisitor named Tomas de Torquemada who made procedures more lenient, improved conditions of the prisons, personally examined appeals and even gave money to help the families of those on trial.

Under Torquemada, torture was reduced significantly. The church has always condemned torture. However, at the time, torture was routinely used by all goverments as a means of extracting confessions. People who were found guilty in the Inquisition were considered traitors to the state and the church with the penalty of execution. However those found guilty were always given a chance to repent. It was only if they refused to repent or if they relapsed into their crimes were they executed.** Also, out of the 100,000 put on trial, only 2000 were executed.** In addition to the above, people charged of regular crimnes would even pretend to be heretics so they would be transferred to the custody of the inquisition since prisoners were treated so much better in the Inquisition in comparison to other courts. In conclusion, while the inquisition was not perfect, it was a more just court than most.

As for the abuses done during the crusades, such as the sack of Jerusalem and Constantinople. An immoral action during a war does not detract from the justice of the cause of war. The immoral action should be condemned, as Godfrey de Boullion condemned the sack of jerusalem and Simon de Montfort condemned the sack of constantinople. However, the war itself remains just. because:

1. The moslems were the aggresors
2. The Christians had every right to re-take christian lands conquered by the moslems.

Also, at no point did the crusaders attack the Moslem homeland, Arabia, but only those orignally Christian territories that the Moslems had conquered*

- School handouts (Handouts were photocopied by the chapter, no mention of any author as only the Chapter titles were shown).

 

[Dave_B]

But I would be cautious about painting all Muslims with the same brush. That would be as incorrect as painting all Christians with the same brush.

Nice post. Thanks for saying some kind words about Muslims. They need our help and prayers, not our condemnation.

 

[Ranp]

You have one bunch of moslems blowing themselves up in the name of God and you have another bunch condemning the other group, living peaceful lives and showing generosity to others. Really, it’s impossible to pin-point the real Islam.

Yes, young Muslim men from the peaceful groups, such as in the US, usually join the ongoing Jihad (terroist activity) after the start studying the Koran indepth. The Koran is very clear about young men needing to take part in Jihad in order to spread Islam.

 

[Ranp]

They often quote the verse from the Koran that says there is no compulsion in religion.

As the true inspired Word of God the Bible does not have any contradictions. On the other hand, the Koran has many contradictions. The rule for reading the Koran is that when two verses contradict each other the later verse is taken as the right one. So yes, the Koran has a verse that clearly state that there is no compulsion in religion, but that verse is overridden by later verses that clearly say the Islaimic religion is compulsive. Once a country or area becomes Islamic people who are neither Christian or Jew are given one choice: convert or be killed. Christians and Jews are not forced to convert but as other already noted they are subjected to the Jizya Tax and being subjected to dhimmitude. If was considered proper throughout Islam for a Muslim tax collector to humiliated each Christian and Jew man as they paid their Jizya Tax. Islaim does allow Christians to keep their churchs but does not allow them to repair it or rebuild it if it is destroyed. The purpose of all of this is to force Christians or Jews to convert to Islam.

 

[Amir_the_Masihi]

THE POLITICALLY INNCORECT GUIDE TO ISLAM is about 270 pages long and gives a good account of how Muslims “converted”.

I’ve read that book by Robert Spencer and I have to say - even as an ex-Muslim - that it’s full of hate. Yes, Islam can be quite militant, like the story of 2 men from Muhammad’s day who didn’t join in the jihad and Allah didn’t accept any of their repentance for a month (I think that’s how the narration goes) reminds me. And I know very well of Muslim aggression; coming from Iran, my people’s land was one of the first places Muslim armies marched into, this battle alone shows how severe Islamic aggression can be. Nonetheless, Robert Spencer is a fear-monger who I believe takes things out of context and uses both subtle as well as overt insults in his work.

Sure, he may be driving towards the same point that we are, but that doesn’t mean we - unlike him - can’t be respectful, decent and modest about this subject. There are enough Robert Spencer’s and Geert Wilder’s in the world already.

Peace.

 

[dzheremi]

What do you think of more scholarly treatments of the subject, Amir? For instance, Sydney Griffith’s “The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque”, Grypeou et al. “The Encounter of Eastern Christianity with Early Islam”, or Ephraim Karsh’s “Islamic Imperialism”? It is telling to me that while they all take slightly different approaches to early Muslim contact with non-Muslims, they do not validate the largely ahistorical approach of modern Islamic apologists, and sometimes even go so far as to negatively evaluate the modern discourse in light of the somewhat more trustworthy earlier Muslim sources which did not go so far as to paint the conquests as anything other than what they were (Robert Hoyland apparently makes this point very clearly by simply comparing early Muslim and non-Muslim sources in his book “Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam”, which has been on my want list for years now…com’on Darwin Press, a cheap paperback version, please!)

 

[Amir_the_Masihi]

What do you think of more scholarly treatments of the subject, Amir? For instance, Sydney Griffith’s “The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque”, Grypeou et al. “The Encounter of Eastern Christianity with Early Islam”, or Ephraim Karsh’s “Islamic Imperialism”? It is telling to me that while they all take slightly different approaches to early Muslim contact with non-Muslims, they do not validate the largely ahistorical approach of modern Islamic apologists, and sometimes even go so far as to negatively evaluate the modern discourse in light of the somewhat more trustworthy earlier Muslim sources which did not go so far as to paint the conquests as anything other than what they were (Robert Hoyland apparently makes this point very clearly by simply comparing early Muslim and non-Muslim sources in his book “Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam”, which has been on my want list for years now…com’on Darwin Press, a cheap paperback version, please!)

I’m all for scholarly treatment; it’s the best kind of treatment. (After massages, of course. )

Seriously, though. No topic is embarrassing or can be seen as provocative when a (relatively) objective approach is taken. Robert Spencer et al. do not fall under that umbrella. Though I can see why some on this forum might be taken with him - he is Catholic (or so I’ve heard), after all and it’s only natural to empathise with him. However, I know one thing, you’d never catch Jesus making snide, hateful comments the way Spencer does about a people who treat Jesus with the utmost respect no matter the crimes they’ve perpetrated against Him… But I digress.

And yes, modern Islamic apologists do have a habit of picking out metaphorical cherries which suit their metaphorical sundaes, as opposed to facing the facts. The Inquisition was bad, but at least Catholics don’t pretend it never happened or say it was something that it wasn’t. Whereas, I quite often see Muslims claim that the vast majority of of people accepted Islam with “open arms” - so to speak. And others say that it was just deserved to spread “Allah’s message” through conquest. I can honestly say that I have no recollection of any Muslim just facing the music and saying that swords = bad.

On a side-note. I’m as anti-Islamic as the next guy. More so, in fact, I want Islam out of my native land. But I cannot abide pure untruths being spoken. If someone said Hitler was a cannibal, I’d be the first to defend him; if someone said Hitler was a brutal murderer, I’d be the first to agree.

Stick with the truth. Even if it makes your own case look bad.

 

[dzheremi]

Seriously, though. No topic is embarrassing or can be seen as provocative when a (relatively) objective approach is taken. Robert Spencer et al. do not fall under that umbrella.

Oh sure, sure. I don’t really know Mr. Spencer from Adam (I wouldn’t buy anything called “The Politically Incorrect Guide to _______”, as I’m not really interested in politics), but I definitely agree with your first sentence.

I can honestly say that I have no recollection of any Muslim just facing the music and saying that swords = bad.

This is really, really sad. I can’t imagine how that must be to live that way. Atonement and personal and community transformation are such huge parts of Christianity, I find it hard to relate to people who are so closed off to even the idea of a different way of life – or, in this case, a different historical narrative that isn’t from their own side. This is why I’ve wanted to read Hoyland’s book, because it compares non-Muslim and Muslim accounts of the same historical events and simply shows the similarities and differences as they are. Hoyland apparently praises the early Muslim historiographers for how closely their accounts mirror the accounts of the non-Muslims. It doesn’t let conquering forces off the hook, of course, but it’s a sense of perspective that has largely been lost on both sides, if we take the Spencers and Deedats of the world to be representative of the level of apologetics involved. (Which, if accurate, is so sad I could just die.)

On a side-note. I’m as anti-Islamic as the next guy. More so, in fact, I want Islam out of my native land.

Don’t we all…

But I cannot abide pure untruths being spoken. If someone said Hitler was a cannibal, I’d be the first to defend him; if someone said Hitler was a brutal murderer, I’d be the first to agree.

Stick with the truth. Even if it makes your own case look bad.

Hear, hear!

 

[sedonaman]

…But I would be cautious about painting all Muslims with the same brush. That would be as incorrect as painting all Christians with the same brush.

Peace,

Seeker

Here we go again. Congratulations. You didn’t make it in the first three posts but did it in five to verify Guido’s Law: “Any internet exchange involving a question/critique/criticism of Islam will, within three comments, lead to comparing Islam with Christianity."

The original question was about Islam not Muslims. Guido’s Second Law states, “Any criticism of Islam will immediately * be followed by one stating the criticism is of ‘all’ Muslims.”*

 

[EzraJacob]

Hey everyone. I have often heard from pro-Islamic sources that Islam did not force conversions at the point of the sword. They often quote the verse from the Koran that says there is no compulsion in religion. However, I am not sure whether to believe them or not. Were people forced to convert to Islam at the point of the sword or not? Please provide sources.

They did it to Christians and Jews. But then again so has Christians. Only difference is we Christians have the guts to admit our wrongs and apologize for them.