Did Islam force conversions at the point of the sword?

[garygodin]

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

I agree to a point, don't paint all Muslims with the same brush, but you can paint Islam with a paint roller.

 

[sedonaman]

I agree to a point, don’t paint all Muslims with the same brush, but you can paint Islam with a paint roller.

I’m glad someone knows the difference.

 

[elwill]

I agree to a point, don’t paint all Muslims with the same brush, but you can paint Islam with a paint roller.

i think i can agree with that either .

 

[KathleenGee]

The other point regarding forced conversions, the bubonic plague and heresy in the Northern African Christian populations took their toll of the people.

But yes, Islam if anything, forces itself on primarily Christians. And they are constantly misinterpreting Scripture, and do not understand the significance of context, dates, and objective documentation. I think there would be more of the latter with the Arab scholars of Aristotle who worked to develop constructs of reason.

But the fundamentalists and their own manner of dictating were very afraid that the use of reason would invalidate the belief in God.

Essentially, St. Thomas Aquinas, proved the existence of God perpendicular to the concept of cause and effect. God is the great Unmoved Mover. Subsequently, the use of reason and science was restored after St. Athanasius’ exhortation to always develop one’s education along with faith. Unfortunately, the Arab scholars were no longer able to engage the topic of reason within Islam.

There is a new movement within Islam working to restore its roots…www.newageislam.com…very good people.

 

[dzheremi]

Hmm. Another way to read that (though probably not the way the poster intended it) would be that there is one Islam that stands over and above the actions or particular beliefs of any given individual self-identified Muslim. I would think that this fits with Sunni Islam quite well in so far as I understand it, as I understand that they refer to themselves as “Ahl al-Sunna” (People of the Tradition [of Muhammad]), thereby making all others (Shi’ites, Alawites, Ahmadis, etc.) innovators to some degree.

I think we Christians of the apostolic churches can probably relate to this idea…!

 

[Rhubarb]

But yes, Islam if anything, forces itself on primarily Christians. And they are constantly misinterpreting Scripture, and do not understand the significance of context, dates, and objective documentation.

I’m sorry, I feel compelled to interject. How many times have I tuned into Catholic Answers Live and heard the apologists explaining the importance of interpretation, context, etc. etc. when a caller will try to defend some, uh, unique theology that is based on a quick reading of one or two verses. And then to read very hostile things about Islam that, I assume, people without any formal teaching in the religion try to defend with a handful of single verses from the Qu’ran.

I’m not trying to defend the abhorrent behaviors of certain Muslims. But please remember that they’re called ‘extremists’ for a reason. They are not the run-of-the-mill Muslim folk who just try to earn a living and support their families in a hard world, like the rest of us.

To the point of discussion, however, yes historically Islam has been spread through conquest. Mind you that a good deal of that conquest, the ‘invaded’ people considered the Muslim armies as liberators. I won’t say either that these conquests were good, nor will I say that they were altruistically driven. In the same way I cannot say that the Crusades or the Conquests of the Americas were truly about spreading the faith, saving souls, and the protection of Christians in the Middle East and Holy Land - if it were true Spain wouldn’t have been shipping back cruelly produced wealth by the ton, and the Crusaders wouldn’t have rampaged across Europe like soccer hooligans, to the point of sacking Byzantium. (Byzantium, being the city that appealed to Western Europe for aid)

Just as with the ‘Christian conquests’, the Muslim conquests were driven by many different rulers, leaders, and empires. There is no one all including rule when discussing them. There were many different actions and reactionary acts taken by both sides throughout the many, many years of history these periods go through.

And historically, the act of conquest always includes a subduing of the local populations, including the eradication of the local language, culture and religions. This mindset is secular - it enables the conquering people a measure of control over the defeated peoples. It is seen in Western history, from the Israelite conquest of Palestine, the Greek conquests, the Roman conquests, ‘Muslim and Christian’ conquests (which I would argue would be better described as 'conquests by people who were Muslim or Christian), Pagan Viking conquests, etc. And in the Eastern World as well as seen in the various conquests of India, China (and the Mongol invasion of China), and conquests of various people in Japan (though religion was left alone there as it was nearly universally shared through history). You can even see evidence of this in the Americas, such as when Aztec culture spread. In fact, the only two conquring people I can think of that DIDN’T decimate local culture was the Achaemenian Persians, and to an extend the Ptolemaic Greeks.

tl;dr

Yes, but so did almost every other culture that ever went to war. It just isn’t that simple.

 

[sedonaman]

…Mind you that a good deal of that conquest, the ‘invaded’ people considered the Muslim armies as liberators. …

I have heard this before. Do you have at least two credible non-Islamic source for it?

Keep in mind that for the most part Christian conquests were conducted contrary to its founder’s teachings; Muslim conquests were conducted in imitation of Islam’s founder, Mohammed, the perfect Muslim.

 

[KathleenGee]

I don’t intend to say it is simple. And likewise, our Catholic faith is constantly being misinterpreted, mostly by other Christians so we work here to explain…and yes, the Church must be present to the times it lives in. And statement made in times past will be misinterpreted today, but our faith is the same. The media, the movies, the literature–there is a great deal of malignment of Christianity, particularly of Catholicism.

What people of non-religion do not understand is our rights. We have our rights to find meaning and purpose in life, just like atheists and agnostics do. And our American culture is one now where you have the right to open expression of profanity, the degradation of religion as the cause of most wars, that the Muslims are now picking it up and promoting it…Christianity as the source.

Christianity did not begin codifying the killing of other people. The precepts of Christianity do not change. It is amazing how much the Church has endured, almost being annihilated various times by various forces in its first millenial history.

Islam has taken over our most holy and sacred places in Israel, the sources of Judaism and Christianity. People did not open their gates with waving flags and flowers allowing Islam to come in. What Islam did to the Orthodox Church and Constantinople. Twice Islam has tried to invade and take over Christianity in the West. Spain was plundered and subjected to dhimmitude, people having to wear green and badges, second class citizens.

You cannot compare the religion, the theology, the practices, and the attitude towards other people between Christianity and Islam because they have different constructs, and Islam does seek world wide domination to become the only religion. Once Islam comes in, it stays. Today it still complains about loosing Spain. It lost Sardenia and Sicily. My priest friend is in the diocese of Trani where the Cathedral has on display in glass the skulls of 800 Italian Catholic men who refused to convert to Islam in the 1580’s.

Islam could not be able to hold the Holy Land and other ancient Christian lands without the support and backing of its own people. No way. It doesn’t mean the common people are like the militants. But if Christians were in sizeable numbers to attempt to take back these former Christian countries, they would be liquidated.

I read a post by Lebanese Arabs as to why the Islamicists won’t attack Russia or China or other countries like them. Because they would suffer a terrible retribution.

I do salute Spain in that it overcame Islam, and its venture into the New World. It has made a great legacy in Central and South America. And it was a culture that knew alot of violence and bloodshed and enslavement in a time span longer than our country has existed.

But Muslim people do not believe in letting go of a country that has been taken by conquest through its own militants. They still complain today of losing Spain. And they wanted to name this mosque near the World Trade Center the Cordova Mosque…study Spain, study the life of the natives living under Islam.

To clarify, Islam goes more towards the direction of traditionally Christian countries; you don’t see it going east to take over Russia or China. Vocal Islam today definitely comes across today as wanting the whole world Islam. You have New Age Islam that wants to return to its golden past in the scholarly learnings of

Palestine, Syria, Egypt were teeming Christian populations. Just recently, CNN took a poll of Egyptians after their pro-democracy demonstrations. The vast majority of people believe in tolerance, but believe those who leave Islam should die. Now, forces are coming together there and it is looking like the Islamists will be the dominating force.

There are those today in Muslim lands who

 

[Rhubarb]

I have heard this before. Do you have at least two credible non-Islamic source for it?

Keep in mind that for the most part Christian conquests were conducted contrary to its founder’s teachings; Muslim conquests were conducted in imitation of Islam’s founder, Mohammed, the perfect Muslim.

If you’ll accept Wikipedia as a source. I’ll poke around to see if I can find something more meaty when I’ve got the time. But it is out there. Mind you, it was the African and Middle Eastern peoples who mostly found themselves choosing Islam as a better alternative to the pagan system they had been living in - I’m not saying that every person touched by a Muslim army was happy. And yes, many conquests were carried out against the faith’s rules. But all men are sinners, no? Again, I’m not trying to excuse it. I’m merely pointing out that other faiths too have acted contrary to their teachings in wartime.

As for the above, and there’s so much I can say - All religions have suffered through history. I do recognize the Catholic Faith is misrepresented and maligned. Which makes me think that, for the most part, Catholics should show some care to not do the same to others.

I think a misunderstanding in many arguments I’ve read is that people see these “attacks” as a “Muslim act” when they should be seeing them as an “act of people who are Muslims.” Islam has to hierarchy like the Catholic Church does - Someone doesn’t throw down a knife onto a map and declare “All Muslims attack that place.” Islam at it’s foundation, and even into today, is also a political movement. And wars are waged by governments. The foundation of Christianity and Islam occurred, too, in very different places and circumstances. One COULD argue, if one was feeling combative, that Christianity didn’t ‘codify’ killing because being a minority in Roman occupied territory wouldn’t allow military actions.

Christianity is guilty of taking other religions’ holy sites as well, and too for forcing conversions with fatal consequences. I’m not saying this is right, or excusable. I’m just saying that people in glass houses ought not to throw stones. Like I said before, forced conversion was a way of subjugating the indigenous populations of a conquered area. Those 800 men who were killed died because the commander of the invading army decided to kill them.

“They” wanted to name the World Trade Center after Cordoba. There’s that “they” again. These are separate people acting apart from each other, not some grand Muslim scheme. And I don’t think at all it’s strange to name a Mosque after one of the religions historic centers of culture and learning. Cordoba is a city, mind you. Not just the Mosque. And in Medieval Europe is was one of the only places where education and culture thrived.

 

[Bezant]

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.

Hello, nice to meet you.

The answer is not straightforward affirmative negative. The short response is yes, BUT rarely, not everywhere, and not every time, not for the same reasons, and not always legitimately.

The long response is that you must keep in mind that Islamic history is 1,400 years old, has gone global, covering a multitude of cultures, and political/historical/demographic change. So as with any historical event you need to look at context. Violent persecution doesn’t happen automatically because of religious differences; in fact, it’s always a costly exercise, and you will find other very strong surrounding factors that motivate people to violent persecution.

The ‘persecution’ (we would consider it such) you get more often in Islamic history was in some ways a the benefit of Muslim rulers; non-Muslims had to pay a tax as previously mentioned. There were better opportunities, socially and economically, for Muslims, so there was often more a tacit pressure to convert.

The Armenian genocide, for example. Pro-Muslim sources and scholars I notice tend to gloss over that event. Many Armenian children were taken from their families and placed in Muslim families. This was clearly a case of forced conversion from Muslims, however to boil it down to “because Muslims convert nonbelievers at the point of a sword, because they don’t like other religions” is completely ignorant. Armenians had lived in the Ottoman Empire for centuries, and there were other Christian communities, like the Greeks, who didn’t suffer the same fate in the same context of the Armenian genocide.

My advice is, read from all sources and take it with a grain of salt.

 

[Bezant]

Islam has taken over our most holy and sacred places in Israel, the sources of Judaism and Christianity.

That is balooney. The Israeli government has maintained the ‘status quo’ of the Mandate and Ottoman era, so any religious group that was in charge of site “X” since that time remains in charge. As the majority of religious sites in Israel are / are of primarily Christian or Jewish significance, there are few debates (eg, Rachel’s Tomb, Tomb of the Patriarchs) as to who governs what site. Ultimately, it is the Israeli government in charge.

 

[sedonaman]

If you’ll accept Wikipedia as a source. I’ll poke around to see if I can find something more meaty when I’ve got the time. But it is out there. Mind you, it was the African and Middle Eastern peoples who mostly found themselves choosing Islam as a better alternative to the pagan system they had been living in - I’m not saying that every person touched by a Muslim army was happy. And yes, many conquests were carried out against the faith’s rules. But all men are sinners, no? Again, I’m not trying to excuse it. I’m merely pointing out that other faiths too have acted contrary to their teachings in wartime.

As for the above, and there’s so much I can say - All religions have suffered through history. I do recognize the Catholic Faith is misrepresented and maligned. Which makes me think that, for the most part, Catholics should show some care to not do the same to others.

I think a misunderstanding in many arguments I’ve read is that people see these “attacks” as a “Muslim act” when they should be seeing them as an “act of people who are Muslims.” Islam has to hierarchy like the Catholic Church does - Someone doesn’t throw down a knife onto a map and declare “All Muslims attack that place.” Islam at it’s foundation, and even into today, is also a political movement. And wars are waged by governments. The foundation of Christianity and Islam occurred, too, in very different places and circumstances. One COULD argue, if one was feeling combative, that Christianity didn’t ‘codify’ killing because being a minority in Roman occupied territory wouldn’t allow military actions.

Christianity is guilty of taking other religions’ holy sites as well, and too for forcing conversions with fatal consequences. I’m not saying this is right, or excusable. I’m just saying that people in glass houses ought not to throw stones. Like I said before, forced conversion was a way of subjugating the indigenous populations of a conquered area. Those 800 men who were killed died because the commander of the invading army decided to kill them.

“They” wanted to name the World Trade Center after Cordoba. There’s that “they” again. These are separate people acting apart from each other, not some grand Muslim scheme. And I don’t think at all it’s strange to name a Mosque after one of the religions historic centers of culture and learning. Cordoba is a city, mind you. Not just the Mosque. And in Medieval Europe is was one of the only places where education and culture thrived.

That wiki article does not address my question about your comment “…Mind you that a good deal of that conquest, the ‘invaded’ people considered the Muslim armies as liberators. …” The word “liberator” does not even occur in it. Your response above doesn’t address it either; both concentrate on forced conversions. Neither addresses my second comment that Islamic conquest is in imitation of Mohammed.

 

[Rhubarb]

Perhaps ‘Liberators’ was the wrong word to use. Forgiveness, please. Perhaps a better word would have been… Innovators? From the article, from Dr. Lapidus - “Islam “represented the response of a tribal, pastoral population to the need for a larger framework for political and economic integration, a more stable state, and a more imaginative and encompassing moral vision to cope with the problems of a tumultuous society.”” And as I said, I spoke mainly about Middle Eastern and North African people - Obviously I wouldn’t say the invasions of Europe were considered good things by the native populations. Like I said, it’s a poor citation and if I can dig up something better I’ll share it.

As for Islamic conquest as an imitation of Muhammad, I’m afraid I’ve never heard that but Muhammad did lead an army, later Islam leaders lead armies. But that’s the end of the connection as I know it. I know that Muhammad’s initial conquest of Mecca was sociopolitical, and some could argue defensive. Can you reference that theory? Now I’m curious for myself.

 

[KathleenGee]

One thing I have found is that common people usually are right on when they sense something other than good will and harmony…and so many times in our modern culture, alot of basic people are not having positive experiences and impressions of how Islam is making itself known, ironically so quickly after 9/11.

And you have to go back to Andria and find out the facts if these 800 men were simply killed because they were natives…or if indeed because they refused to submit to Islam.

We were reading about the Bosnian War here in the early 90’s. And the newspaper gave us a history of why the Serbs, Muslims, and Croatians had such a history of violence. Well, the capitol of the Orthodox is now Instanbul, its great church St. Sophia staked by the pillars of Islam; the streets were steep in blood Then when the Turks came into that country, there was quite a resistance. So to teach them a lesson, Serbian resistance fighters had takes thrust into their mouths, down through their bodies, and staked on the roadside to die. Later the Serbs ran a huge multitude of Muslims off a huge cliff. It is so violent. So violent.

And when you speak of Christians taking over and replacing religions of their own…what was it reacting to? Just in the Western Hemisphere, the Aztec Indians sacrificed human beings every day in hopes the sun would return the next day, and many times they took the young of other Indian tribes, and these in turn were the ones who decimated the Aztecs in their final battle.

And speaking of Spain and Mexico, it was the Spanish church in Mexico who gave women and girls a right to an education hundreds of years before North American women were. And it was Mexico, not our country, that was the center of learning, and the universities there in the 1500’s had Indian professors teaching there.

I would recommend ‘Blood Drenched Altars’, by Monsignor Francis Kelley.

I say these things because our young people have been systematically taught how bad religion is, how it has caused more wars and deaths.

And I must say that there are a number of Muslim organizations who have their own agendas that members of Congress are looking into. It is not right either to come into a new country and begin litigious suing to have your way, while on the other hand there is not the same freedoms for us.

You have to look at individual cases on their own ground…and you can’t stereotype people on the other extreme either.

 

[sedonaman]

You said,

… Muhammad did lead an army, later Islam leaders lead armies.

Add that to “Every Muslim’s life goal is to imitate Mohammed in every detail. Mohammed led a fascinating life – he was a business man, prophet, politician and warrior. His greatest invention was a political system that can make all others [political systems] submit. … Everything has to be done the way Mohammed did. Mohamed is the perfect pattern of life for all peoples for all time” politicalislam.com/blog/mohammed/, and there you have it.

… I know that Muhammad’s initial conquest of Mecca was sociopolitical, and some could argue defensive.

Muslims have said that Islam fights only defensive wars. To a Westerner, this is a ridiculous claim in view of all the Islamic conquests, and to understand how the claim could be made, one has to remember that Islam says it has a mandate from Allah to bring the whole world under Islamic submission; therefore, anything or anybody standing in the way of that goal is waging “offensive” war against Islam, and Islam is only “defending” itself. This is nothing less than a grotesque view of the world because one of the complaints Muslims have is the Crusades, what they consider a Christian invasion of Islamic land. We say, “What goes around comes around,” so Islam has to expect that what it dishes out, it must eventually eat itself.

 

[peterjack]

This is the best way to get lot of knowledge. Here you will get everything what you want.
If you are looking for best J2ME tutorials, notes Simple Click Here and get.
This is very easy and very best.​

J2ME Tutorial

 

[Rhubarb]

Politicalislam.com is not an unbiased, scholarly site. It is akin to using chick.com to learn about Catholicism.

 

[sedonaman]

Politicalislam.com is not an unbiased, scholarly site. It is akin to using chick.com to learn about Catholicism.

Nobody is unbiased. Just because a person is biased doesn’t mean what he says is in error. Are you saying political Islam doesn’t exist, or what? Show where the author is wrong, don’t just hurl ad hominems without any proof at all.

 

[sedonaman]

Politicalislam.com is not an unbiased, scholarly site. It is akin to using chick.com to learn about Catholicism.

OR, if it is biased and un-scholarly, are you saying that “Mohamed is not necessarily the perfect pattern of life for all peoples for all time” as the author states?

BTW, in case you are not aware of it, “scholarly” doesn’t exist any more. The academy is no longer in pursuit of truth; by its own admission, it exists for political advocacy of liberal causes. If you doubt me, read this [you need Adobe Acrobat Reader]

google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCcQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.studentsforacademicfreedom.org%2Ffile_download%2F24&rct=j&q=advocate%20%22STEPHEN%20H.%20BALCH%20%22&ei=ZUAOTs7hH9TTiALCs9WEDg&usg=AFQjCNHEsuuJ6sKx21YbcnSE_5iVbr3EBQ&sig2=n_3n-j4-knCzv8B-P5r9Qg&cad=rja

 

[KathleenGee]

By the way, going back to the common people …having more a sense of the reality of the situation than the spin media or those in power…and going back to the dispute over the Cordoba Mosque name for that to be built near the WTC, …the imams throughout the world told that imam heading this project to not to do such a thing because it would then look as a victory, as a sign of warfare and domination rather than understanding.

So the faction leading the dispute were very politically motivated, empowered by the vote of about 27 financiers.

It seems there is so much excuse and re-explanations in defense of Islam while in fact, it has been the cause of many wars. There was a historical thread put out in 2006 or 7…and it showed the timeline of Islamic aggression…just about every 3 years or so.

And then the 800 Catholic men beheaded by the Turks to make a political statement to the people…there were many natives fighting the Turks…we don’t have all the facts of the situation, but the local bishops are discerning whether or not deaths are of martyrdom or political infighting…

Too many spins…all the while the world totally ignores the many million who died under communism, let alone Islam and government wars.