Did Islam force conversions at the point of the sword?

[GaryTaylor]

"where are the clear historical facts of converting people to islam by swords like these facts which known about christianity for example
where is the histotrical fatcs which fit " convert or die expression

I believe you have the carriage and horse misplaced. The fact that people are driven to submission through Islamic extremists would constitude conversion by the sword.

Afghanistan is perfect example. US soldiers leave and then come’s murder by example and total submission to Allah. And these “are” the good muslims who want peace and to be left alone to worship and live.

This “is” happening today in Islam ruled countrys. It is "not happening “today” in Christian countrys.

As for the weakness of one faith or another… Absurd statement which can easily be viewed the opposite way…But as you mention yourself, jumping to conlusions in wild specualtion doesn’t help the situation nor is it the OP.

See here’s how it works here…“Patriots” of the USA have a priority to always place Government under watch less we become victim of error. Which gives you a clearer understanding of exactly the what/why of military involvement today. Yet these are not the crusaders their, its the US and Allied forces…Patriots of the US and other countries.

Catholics nor the church promote this War nor the last War in the middle East and have spoken on both. Which also indicates the unwillingness to revert to violence and they have done so as a “constant” for “centurys” in the Catholic Faith. Maybe this is where you arrive at the “weak” concept? Because with a resounding “YES” Islamic Violence continues. And Peace and Love is the goal in unity through Christology, and that Moral Example is “Jesus Christ” not Mohammad…

So without further delay I do believe we can conclude Catholics are not promoting violence to any degree but World Peace and Unity and Love in JESUS CHRIST.

So fundementals would show a basic theological difference. While we know Christ is God, you would disagree, thus would be considered to Catholics anti-christ. Or another great possibility are those who are ignorant. Which through their devotion in what they view as God, and living a life which conforms to Gods Will, they may find salvation. Which also could be in context to Catholic Doctrine.

I know muslims who would fit this profile whom I am friends with.

Nonetheless I digress to my own statement here…

“Catholics nor the church promote this War nor the last War in the middle East and have spoken on both. Which also indicates the unwillingness to revert to violence which has been a “constant” for “centurys” in the Catholic Faith.”

Peace!

 

[elwill]

Yes. That means you stop speculating and start listening to people who deal with primary sources. Let’s see what they have to say.

From Grypeou, Swanson and Thomas (eds) “The encounter of Eastern Christianity with early Islam” (Brill Academic Pub. 2006):

“Abu 'Ubayda Ibn al-, the general who conducted the siege [of Jerusalem], offered either conversion to Islam or capitulation of the city and payment of taxes in exchange for the safe conduct of its inhabitants, or else war and, in the case of defeat, destruction.” (2006: 35)

This squares exactly with what Isa is Allah has written, and what all Christians generally know to be the case about Islam. A few additional comments could be made, like: Conversions precipitated by military generals conducting sieges upon foreign territory are INHERENTLY unacceptable and clash with the peaceful picture of Islam that you and other apologists for evil try to present favorably with reference to some lie about the “strength of the religion” or what the horrible, horrible Christians have done in the Crusades (literally 400 years after the event described in the chapter of this book happened). When the Christians did those things (and forever afterward), Muslims whined and cried foul and chastised us for going against our religion, as you understand it to mean that we are not allowed to fight you. Well we can certainly still fight your ignorance and misinformation, which brings me to…

allow me to ignore your gray words above because i can’t see any facts or any historical records or specific events to discuss or check it out

so let us begin with the conquest of Jerusalem , what you said is perfectly true , but let me complete the story
they choosed to fight , then muslims besieged the holy city until the inhabitants of Aelia despaired and decided to surrender and seek reconciliation
then this was the convenant of Omar

In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate

This is an assurance of peace and protection given by the servant of Allah Omar, Commander of the Believers to the people of Ilia’ (Jerusalem). **He gave them an assurance of protection for their lives, property, church and crosses as well as the sick and healthy and all its religious community. **
Their churches shall not be occupied, demolished nor taken away wholly or in part. None of their crosses nor property shall be seized. **They shall not be coerced in their religion nor shall any of them be injured. None of the Jews shall reside with them in Ilia’. **
The people of Ilia shall pay Jizia tax (head tax on free non-Muslims living under Muslim rule) as inhabitants of cities do. They shall evict all Romans and thieves.

He whoever gets out shall be guaranteed safety for his life and property until he reach his safe haven. He whoever stays shall be (also) safe, in which case he shall pay as much tax as the people of Ilia’ do. Should any of the people of Ilia wish to move together with his property along with the Romans and to clear out of their churches and crosses, they shall be safe for their lives, churches and crosses, until they have reached then safe haven. He whoever chooses to stay he may do so and he shall pay as much tax as the people of Ilia’ do. He whoever wishes to move along with the Roman, may do so, and whoever wishes to return back home to his kinsfolk, may do so. Nothing shall be taken from them, their crops have been harvested. To the contents of this covenant here are given the Covenant of Allah, the guarantees of His Messenger, the Caliphs and the Believers, provided they (the people of Ilia’) pay their due Jizia tax”(89).

It is clear that the Caliph was very conciliating with the people of Aelia. Al Aqad describes it “the best covenant in history that shows how a victorious people deal with the defeated one”, and “No victorious leader can hope to produce a more generous peace covenant than this one

While Caliph Omar Ibn Al Khattab was visiting the Church of Resurrection, the call for prayers was made. But he refused to pray inside the church and performed his prayer in a nearby spot, to avoid that Muslims, emulating his acts, would afterwards lay claim to the church.

so with reading whole story , you will find out that in facts no one was forced to convert , and before you said to me it’s because jeziah , go and learn firstly what is jeziah is
it was annual tax with nearly 1.5 % of your wealth , don’t tell me that someone can convert to islam because of jeziah , as for muslims they payed 2.5 % annualy

find for me another fact please

:

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t have to find you a damn thing if you choose to ignore the reality of your OWN BOOK that says the Jaziyah is to be paid with submission and feeling brought low.

If you can’t understand why that’s inherently terrible (or answer any of the other facts I brought in my previous post when you asked for them), and instead still bray on and on about percentages, you truly are an idiot.

If 1.5% of the Muslims in the world were stripped of their rights to practice their religion and subjugated or murdered, you wouldn’t be comforted by reasoning like “well, at least it wasn’t 2.5%!”

Use your brain, or else Allah did all that work of creating you for nothing…

 

[Amir_the_Masihi]

If you came from Iran, then I’m sure there must have been people who sounded the alarm when muslim armies marched into your country. What is the difference if Robert Spencer or Geert Wilder says the same now? They do not want what happened to Iran to happen elsewhere. Makes sense to me.
The Netherlands is known to be a pretty laid back country. Hasn’t worked for them. Pim was assasinated followed by Van Gogh’s nephew. Both were killed by Muslims.
Would it be an wrong assumption to think that Wilder now has a body guard, or maybe is in hiding like so many others before him?

There’s a difference between saying, “Guys! There’s a group of radical Muslims marching on our land right now; trying to cause us harm and change our ways!”, and, “Guys! All Muslims hate us and they all want to follow their brutal and sadistic religion to its end by forcefully converting all of us.”

Not to mention that the addresses ‘fkallah.com’ and 'fkislam.com’ (censoring is mine) used to redirect to Robert Spencer’s site jihadwatch.com. And after he was exposed, they magically didn’t anymore! Such a hateful coward.
And one needs only look at Geert Wilder’s speeches to see what he’s like.

I dare you to tell me unequivocally that the conduct of such men is at all like how Christ would have acted.

 

[elwill]

There is very little that I can write in response to this that would not result in an immediate infraction for a severe lack of charity, so I will try to control the passions by instead simply pointing out that according to your own book, in Surat 9 (al-Tawba) the jaziyah is instructed to be paid “in acknowledgment of superiority and …] in a state of subjection”. If you think that not wanting to be treated this way points to weak faith among the Christians, than I can only request that you be fair and apply the same to your own community whenever you hear a fellow Muslim complaining about America and Israel and all the daily humiliations suffered by Palestinians or Iraqis or whoever at the hands of foreign powers, which by the way does not even carry this dimension of intentional degradation prescribed in holy texts, so really what the Muslims do is much, much worse. And now you call us weak for what? For not responding as Muslims do by beheading or blowing you guys up? Again, when Christians have behaved like that, you IMMEDIATELY and forever cried foul and expended no small amount of energy and time demonizing us and using that experience as fuel for future jihad. So enough out of you. I refuse to listen to any more Muslim whining and hypocrisy.

just for your information , the first chalif " abo bakr" forced muslims to pay their zakaht , in my government and yours i think that you have to pay your taxs either or you will go to prison

jeziah are taken from those who have the ability to pay , no jeziah on women nor children nor poors

the OP originally asking about forcing people to convert by sword , so talking about jeziah is another thing , you need to check about the true meaning of jeziah in islamic sources , it’s normal tax such as these taxs which you pay as a citizen

 

[dzheremi]

Oh my gosh…are you willfully ignoring what I’ve written? Ya Allah (al-Ab w al-Ibn w al-Ruh al-Quddus, al-ilahu il wahid), why do I bother…

The point is: Jaziyah is commanded to be paid “in acknowledgment of superiority” and “in a state of subjection.”

This is the problem. This is why none of the other things you mention matter. It is NOT about how much people have to pay relative to other communities, it is not about who has to pay it and who doesn’t from the affected population, it is entirely about how it is designed to emphasize the subjugation and humiliation of non-Muslims precisely BECAUSE THEY ARE NON-MUSLIMS. This is something that no Muslim would countenance for themselves.

Either deal with that problem, or just stop responding. Bringing up everything else under the sun just makes you look like a cowardly snake in the grass.

 

[elwill]

Oh my gosh…are you willfully ignoring what I’ve written? Ya Allah (al-Ab w al-Ibn w al-Ruh al-Quddus, al-ilahu il wahid), why do I bother…

The point is: Jaziyah is commanded to be paid “in acknowledgment of superiority” and “in a state of subjection.”

This is the problem. This is why none of the other things you mention matter. It is NOT about how much people have to pay relative to other communities, it is not about who has to pay it and who doesn’t from the affected population, it is entirely about how it is designed to emphasize the subjugation and humiliation of non-Muslims precisely BECAUSE THEY ARE NON-MUSLIMS. This is something that no Muslim would countenance for themselves.

Either deal with that problem, or just stop responding. Bringing up everything else under the sun just makes you look like a cowardly snake in the grass.

yes it acknowledge superioroty , i agree
but i’m still don’t understand is this superioroty thing is enough or convinced reason to convert , is that really answer the question of the OP
it’s like saying that christians converted to islam to be in side of superioroty .
no conversion by sword are proved yet by this view either

i know that you trying to say that jeziah were oppreseve tax ( which i think it to be not convinced reason for someone to leave his relegion which you trying to equate with conversion by sword )
but i will show you that tax ins’t oppresive at all

For those who don’t know, the Jizya is a tax imposed on the Christians and Jews living under the protection of the Islamic state. However, it is not imposed on all Christians and Jews. It is only imposed on the men who have attained puberty. So therefore it is not imposed on the women and children. The tax is also imposed fairly and is not meant to be overburdening.

The Jizya tax guarantees the Christians and Jews complete protection under the Islamic state. If an enemy country attacks the Islamic country, the Islamic country has a duty to defend the Christians and Jews and the Christians and Jews are not even obliged to fight!

Muslims also have to pay a yearly tax called Zakat. Zakat is even binding on property, and jewellery. Zakat should also be paid in the form of food as well. The Jizya is not binding on the property of the Christians and Jews.

Christians might use Surah 9:29 to show that Muslims must fight them until they pay the Jizya, so this shows discrimination. However, this also applies to the Muslims who do not pay their Zakat! Abu Bakr fought against the Muslims who didn’t pay Zakat. So how does this discriminate against the Christians and Jews?

This is completely justified. If they go against the Islamic rule and government they deserve to be punished. What else was Abu Bakr supposed to do? In America if someone does not pay their taxes they can go to jail. Does that make America unjust? In China they kill tax evaders

Zakah is one of the 5 pillars of Islam and it is compulsory on everyone. It is compulsory even on the non-Muslim, this is called Jizya. Jizya does not degrade the non-Muslim people, it actually brings equality. Since the Muslims are obliged to pay Zakah, then why cant non-Muslims pay Jizya? That brings equality between the two.

The Jizya is a tax levied on non-Muslims in lieu of military service which is compulsory for Muslims but not for non-Muslims. The amount of Jizya is much less than the Zakat, which is levied on Muslims only. The non-Muslims paying Jizya were exempt from compulsory military service in a Muslim State but were entitled to full protection.
answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/is_jizya_tax_oppressive.htm

 

[KathleenGee]

Pride is the worst sin. How many wars have killed fellow human beings in the name of superiority?

Satan tempted Adam and Eve to be like gods…superior beings.

Christ said to follow Him…He washed the feet of His apostles…Servant of the servants.

Love is the greatest and most enduring power on earth. Today we are seeing the coming apex of atheism, falsehood, – and their demise.

 

[dzheremi]

Think about it this way, Elwill: If you could convert to a religion that would immediately elevate your social status, economy, safety, and general well-being, it is at least understandable that this would factor into your decision if the alternative were continued and daily humiliations, a steady erosion of your rights, no true security (as who in their right mind would depend on their oppressor for these things?), and everything else Christians had to (and have to) deal with under Muslim rule. I agree with your general point that this does not itself excuse of explain apostasy 100% of the time, but I disagree with your idea that this shows “weak faith” among the Christians to the point that it cannot be called a contributing factor. For sure, it IS a weakness in faith, as many Christian persevered in their religion despite any obstacles (even going so far as to leave their native lands just to retain their Christianity), but it is not unconnected to the cruel and barbarous treatment they received under successive Muslim regimes, either in the past or now.

After all, isn’t a similar argument made by Muslims about people in poor countries who convert to Islam? “Oh, they must have offered him some money/food/job, etc., because no one would convert to Christianity otherwise. Christians exploit people this way.” I’m not saying you said this, but I have heard it more than a few times from Muslims unwilling to face the reality that some people leave the religion because they find another better. I am not above admitting that this must happen with some percentage of weak Christians (especially nowadays, when there are more weak Christians than ever before). All I ask is that everyone try to be fair and see that as we are all humans, we are all subject to pressures.

Regarding forced conversions (this is what “at the point of the sword” really means), I’m not sure what you’re looking for that I didn’t address in my previous post with all of the links. Children being kidnapped from their parents and raised as Muslims is just as much a forced conversion as being told to convert or die, though it seems like you won’t take anything less as evidence that forced conversions are part of Islamic practice. Unfortunately for everyone, there are plenty of examples of that too, whether they are from the time of Muhammad or more recently. It is of course true that for the self-interested, no amount of evidence that runs contrary to their pre-existing notions will suffice to get them to think differently. No doubt you will find some context that excuses your prophet from telling someone that they must come to embrace Islamic tenets or have their head chopped off…

What can I do. You don’t want to think, you want assent to Islam.

 

[sedonaman]

… All I ask is that everyone try to be fair and see that as we are all humans, we are all subject to pressures. …

Take away those pressures, let people vote with their feet, and watch the mass exodus from Islam.

 

[aicirt]

There’s a difference between saying, “Guys! There’s a group of radical Muslims marching on our land right now; trying to cause us harm and change our ways!”, and, “Guys! All Muslims hate us and they all want to follow their brutal and sadistic religion to its end by forcefully converting all of us.”

Not to mention that the addresses ‘fkallah.com’ and 'fkislam.com’ (censoring is mine) used to redirect to Robert Spencer’s site jihadwatch.com. And after he was exposed, they magically didn’t anymore! Such a hateful coward.
And one needs only look at Geert Wilder’s speeches to see what he’s like.

I dare you to tell me unequivocally that the conduct of such men is at all like how Christ would have acted.

You are actually upset over the way these men are sounding the alarm? You, having come from Iran, realize the truth in what they’re saying but don’t like the words.
Spencer used the f word and is a hateful coward. Has Spencer killed anyone because of their religion? Wilder is living in his homeland which is losing its identity. Did Iran change after the Muslims took over? Certainly changed after the fundies kicked the Shah out. Are the women happier there? The Christians?

 

[arabic_catholic]

let’s see
1- after the death of Mohamed 2/3 of Arabia , left Islam , so muslims use force to kill them and force them to come back to Islam

2- Abu baker the first calipha made war against The roman Empire and the Persian Empire !

3- Omar bin alkhatab the second calipha kicked out all jews from arabia , and took over Persia , Egypt , Palestine , Syria , Iraq. the pagans were forced to convert to Islam , The Christians and jews were under the Sharia Law.

4- the Muslim rulers try to take over Europe for in the Islamic tradition it was said according to Mohamed that Rome will be conquered by muslims , and Constantinople will be under the token over as well , and who ever take over this city will be a blessed man , for this reason they continue attacking the roman Empire , every person wanted to be that blessed man ! they try to take over turkey but they felied , they took over spain and went to france in order to take over rome in the next stage but they were defeated , however in later centuries , they did take over turkey , and they did conquer Constantinople

5- they attack Pakistan and Afghanistan and all Central Asia , and in later time India so they can convert them to Islam

6- the only good example that I can remember is Indonesia which converted to Islam without force

guess what , the Islamic world today is not very different than the Islamic empire ages ago

here is the Islamic world


and here is the Islamic Empire


the reason why islam grow in west africa due to the Almoravid dynasty which took over this area in the 11th century and converted it to islam

 

[dzheremi]

I take Amir’s point to be that there are effective ways of making a point, and there are ineffective ways of making that same point. I myself have shamefully let my emotions overtake me at least once in this thread so far (while it’s no excuse, I will say that the fate of non-Muslim minorities in the Islam-occupied lands is definitely one of my “buttons”), though I recognize that this does not do my points any favors. Lord have mercy on us all.

There is no need to depend on men like Spencer or Wilders or what have you when there are less inflammatory (but I suppose more difficult to process/digest) sources out there that set the record straight. Overall what we are praying for is a change in hearts and minds of Muslims, not to beat them into submission with our iron arguments. If they ask for sources, give them to them. If there is a particular point of logic they are missing (e.g., my point that Muslim demands from others what it would not allow to be taken from itself), give them that. But you can’t force anyone to believe anything or change beliefs by your own arguments.

When more shocking evangelists (e.g., Fr. Zakariya) go about their own way, it is with results because of their intimate understanding of the culture, and also always with sources (from what I can see, anyway). As Spencer is no Bukhari (even if he uses Bukhari as a source; I don’t know either way), there is a certain disconnect for Muslims, even if there might not be for non-Muslims.

 

[sedonaman]

…guess what , the Islamic world today is not very different than the Islamic empire ages ago …

All that land but none to make room for 1.5 million Palestinians.

 

[arabic_catholic]

All that land but none to make room for 1.5 million Palestinians.

and do you think that the Palestine- isreal problem is a problem of land ?

did you know that in the islamic tradition , they will take over Jerusalem , and the stone and tree will talk and say ,: ‘’ there is a jew behind me is hiding, come muslim and kill him ‘’

the reasons why muslims don’t want to have peace with israel because they are waiting this glories Day when they destroy the jewish people and take over Jerusalem

so I don’t believe that the israel - palestine conflict is about land , it is all about religion !

 

[sedonaman]

and do you think that the Palestine- isreal problem is a problem of land ?

did you know that in the islamic tradition , they will take over Jerusalem , and the stone and tree will talk and say ,: ‘’ there is a jew behind me is hiding, come muslim and kill him ‘’

the reasons why muslims don’t want to have peace with israel because they are waiting this glories Day when they destroy the jewish people and take over Jerusalem

so I don’t believe that the israel - palestine conflict is about land , it is all about religion !

I know all that. My observation is to point out the absurdity of the demands to carve a Palestinian state out of Israel when Muslims have so much land to begin with, plus ALL the oil in the ME. How much longer can they continue to sell this con job that they just can’t live without a narrow strip with nothing on it or under it?

 

[Tyuiop411]

Even Catholicism has forced conversions at the point of a sword (Crusades), but Islam is most known for it because thats the main way it spread. If Islam didn’t spread by conquest I think today it would be kinda like Hinduism, confined to one geographical area. Heck, from what I’ve heard from some Saudis that attend college here is that there are a large number of people in the KSA that pay nothing more than lip service to Islam. Simply because if they left Islam it becomes impossible to live in the KSA.

As for the idea of having a separate Palestinian state. I think I would be okay with it as long as they didn’t want to divide Jerusalem, I’m just not comfortable with any more Christian holy sites falling under Muslim control.

 

[EzraJacob]

and do you think that the Palestine- isreal problem is a problem of land ?

did you know that in the islamic tradition , they will take over Jerusalem , and the stone and tree will talk and say ,: ‘’ there is a jew behind me is hiding, come muslim and kill him ‘’

the reasons why muslims don’t want to have peace with israel because they are waiting this glories Day when they destroy the jewish people and take over Jerusalem

so I don’t believe that the israel - palestine conflict is about land , it is all about religion !

I have herd Muslims call Israel their holy land. They will not be happy until every Jew is under them.

I think Muslims, if their are moderates, are allowing demons to run them. But the leaders keep everyone stupid.

 

[elwill]

Even Catholicism has forced conversions at the point of a sword (Crusades), but Islam is most known for it because thats the main way it spread. If Islam didn’t spread by conquest I think today it would be kinda like Hinduism, confined to one geographical area. Heck, from what I’ve heard from some Saudis that attend college here is that there are a large number of people in the KSA that pay nothing more than lip service to Islam. Simply because if they left Islam it becomes impossible to live in the KSA.

As for the idea of having a separate Palestinian state. I think I would be okay with it as long as they didn’t want to divide Jerusalem, I’m just not comfortable with any more Christian holy sites falling under Muslim control.

i can agree that islam spread by conquests , not by forcing people to convert rather it’s by preaching the relegion

Islam is so strong and so self-assured that it does not need to use force to attract others to it. The moral and intellectual superiority of Islam has manifested itself clearly

Islam has penetrated the Middle East, North Africa, Spain, West Africa, East Africa, Eastern Europe, Asia Minor, the Caucasus, Central Asia, Afghanistan, India, Western China and the Malay Archipelago. In all these regions, Islam replaced so many other well-established religions: Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Paganism and Animism.

throughout the history of Islam. Despite the ills that Muslims are facing everywhere, Islam continues to be the fastest growing religion on earth. Professor Huston Smith of the MIT in his book, The Religions of Man says:

“In some areas where Islam and Christianity are competing for converts, Islam is gaining at a rate of 10 to 1.”

Many have sought to answer the questions of why the triumph of Islam was so speedy and complete? Why have so many millions embraced the religion of Islam and scarcely a hundred ever recanted? Some have attempted to explain the first overwhelming success of Islam by the argument of the Sword. They forget Carlyle’s laconic reply. First get your sword. You must win men’s hearts before you can induce them to imperil their lives for you; and the first conquerors of Islam must have been made Muslims before they were made fighters on the Path of God.

the religion itself is left out of the question. Decidedly, Islam itself was the main cause for its triumph. Islam not only was at once accepted (by many peoples and races) by Arabia, Syria, Persia, Egypt, Northern Africa and Spain, at its first outburst; but, with the exception of Spain, it has never lost its vantage ground; it has been spreading ever since it came into being. Admitting the mixed causes that contributed to the rapidity of the first swift spread of Islam, they do not account for the duration of Islam. There must be something in the religion itself to explain its persistence and spread, and to account for its present hold over so large of a proportion of the dwellers on the earth… Islam has stirred an enthusiasm that has never been surpassed. Islam has had its martyrs, its self-tormentors, its recluses, who have renounced all that life offered and have accepted death with a smile for the sake of the faith that was in them.
(Stanley Lane-Poole, Study in a Mosque, pp.86-89)

 

[elwill]

I take Amir’s point to be that there are effective ways of making a point, and there are ineffective ways of making that same point. I myself have shamefully let my emotions overtake me at least once in this thread so far (while it’s no excuse, I will say that the fate of non-Muslim minorities in the Islam-occupied lands is definitely one of my “buttons”), though I recognize that this does not do my points any favors. Lord have mercy on us all.

There is no need to depend on men like Spencer or Wilders or what have you when there are less inflammatory (but I suppose more difficult to process/digest) sources out there that set the record straight. Overall what we are praying for is a change in hearts and minds of Muslims, not to beat them into submission with our iron arguments. If they ask for sources, give them to them. If there is a particular point of logic they are missing (e.g., my point that Muslim demands from others what it would not allow to be taken from itself), give them that. But you can’t force anyone to believe anything or change beliefs by your own arguments.

When more shocking evangelists (e.g., Fr. Zakariya) go about their own way, it is with results because of their intimate understanding of the culture, and also always with sources (from what I can see, anyway). As Spencer is no Bukhari (even if he uses Bukhari as a source; I don’t know either way), there is a certain disconnect for Muslims, even if there might not be for non-Muslims.

excellent post dzheremi