Did Islam force conversions at the point of the sword?

[sedonaman]

The issue is that of the church raising physical armies to wage war after the flesh.

As the kingdom of Christ is not a theocracy as in Islam, being not of this world, else would His servants fight after its manner, (Jn. 18:36) thus the N.T. church did seek to rule over those without, (1Cor. 5:12) and did not wage war after the flesh, (2Cor. 10:3) and as it is not constituted to wage its battles by physical force, and when it does it leaves a negative legacy, whether in Catholicism or Protestantism.

Instead New Testament Christianity ultimately does not wrestle against flesh and blood (Eph. 6:12) and thus “the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;” (2Cor. 10:4) “By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left.” (2Cor. 6:6,7)

The Holy Spirit does sanction the just use of the sword of men however, (Rm. 13:1-7; 1Pet. 2:13,14) and its morality cannot be antiseptically disassociated from religious moral beliefs, as hyper separatists strive for, esp. as regards Christian faith, but in general it will reflect the morality of the general beliefs if primarily holds to. But although some Popes condemned that the state should be separate from the church, and even that the former is not obligated to financially support the latter*, there is a difference btwn outlawing polygamy and punishing people for not formally belonging to a church, or for holding theological views at variance with it.

*"[It is error to believe that] The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church." - Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus Issued in 1864, Section VI, Errors About Civil Society, Considered Both in Itself and in its Relation to the Church, #55. ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P9SYLL.HTM

When the law, by the suppression of the Budget of Public Worship, exonerates the State from the obligation of providing for the expenses of worship, it violates an engagement contracted in a diplomatic convention, and at the same time commits a great injustice. - Pope Pius X VEHEMENTER NOS, Encyclical promulgated on February 11, 1906. papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10law.htm

Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302: Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: ‘Put up thy sword into thy scabbard’ [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest. Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302 fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus (of Errors): “[It is error to believe that] The (Catholic) Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect.” Section V, Errors Concerning the Church and Her Rights, #24. ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P9SYLL.HTM

None of this addresses the OP question.

 

[daniel1212]

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.

I do not know of “numerous texts claiming freedom of religion, etc.”, but you do have most Muslims in the West living peaceful lives, and in most regard showing greater piety than their “Christian” counterparts. However, the devil uses morality that is from God to give validity to false religion.

As for religious violence in Islam, and the Lord sanctioned such under Joshua (though the RC NAB notes relegate such to being “folk tales”) and saints shall wage such by manifestly Divine power in the end (Rv. 19:11-21; Jude 1:14,15).

But while Islam seeks to operate under the same type of sanction, but for Israel its wars were limited in geography, and (very importantly) had manifestly evident Divine sanction, as well as the foretelling of a new covenant which was distinctly “not according” to that which He made under Moses (Jer. 31:31,32) and instituted at Christ’s death (Heb. 9:16)

Islam has not this profound manner of Divine sanction, or provision for a new covenant, and if anything resembled such it was in Muhammad’s preMedeinic "revelations,"under which the near-solitary injunction against compulsion in religion is found, due to him being a minority faith in Mecca. But as in Mormonism, Muhammad’s “revelations” corresponded to his needs.

And in contrast to the Bible, due to the nature of the Qur’an, with its lack of context and historical narratives, a basically clear theology regarding restricting religious violence to simply being defensive against physical conquests cannot be established, while it clearly mandates and sanctions religious violence, with retribution. And in which, the criteria of what constitutes war against Islam and what meaneth subduing the rebellious until all the religion of the land be of Allah, is open to the interpretation of Muslim terrorists, being supported by Muhammad’s example and the Hadith.

 

[daniel1212]

None of this addresses the OP question.

It addresses the issue of the right of the Roman church to conduct war, which inevitably became (and becomes) an issue due to the question of Islamic conquests and forced conversion.

 

[sedonaman]

It addresses the issue of the right of the Roman church to conduct war, which inevitably became (and becomes) an issue due to the question of Islamic conquests and forced conversion.

I don’t see that any question of Islam must necessarily drag in Christianity. The question is, “Did Islam force conversions at the point of the sword?” What Christianity [or the Catholic Church] did has nothing to do with it. Muslims have free will just like anyone else, so they either did it or they didn’t do it.

 

[daniel1212]

But as the subject was the Crusades, distinguishing btwn Roman Catholicism and the EO, who were sometimes attacked by the Crusaders (though not completely pacifist themselves) was fitting, as it sometimes is in dealing with some other beliefs of Catholics.Perhaps using “Roman Catholic church” would have been more acceptable.

 

[daniel1212]

That is well, but it is easily understandable that the many surfers who come across a page in which a distinction is warranted but not apparent may not. In such a case i need to know if it is against a forum rule to refer to the Roman Catholic church for that purpose.

 

[Defender1]

That is how it should be .

 

[daniel1212]

New poll pertinent to that: abudhabigallupcenter.com/File/148778/MAR_Report_ADGC_Bilingual_072011_sa_LR_web.pdf

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

I believe that the initial conquests were just that, conquests. The Muslim armies who came out of Arabia into the Fertile Crescent and further, were there to conquer peoples. I think in most cases these soldiers would have been hard pressed to even explain Islam. The classical story is that conversion happened later. Does this mean there were no forced conversions? Of course not.

Were there never any forced conversions to Christianity? Duh.

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.

 

[lude0r]

I think maybe, more so then not the issue at hand is the sword in general. The sword in general to me means that it is one in the same in Islam. It is an attribute of Islam. It is a link in the history of Islam just as many other things. What would Islam be without it, maybe one could ask? What would Islam be or look like without it to be more in depth? How can a instrument designed for (I’m guessing here) killing be a MAJOR attribute of Islam? Love, peace and life cannot have an attribute such as the sword for it is the opposite of the former. I don’t think we need to choose a side of whether the sword was used in a righteous or non-righteous way but rather why it is an attribute of a religion that says it represents the one true god and PEACE.

A sword or a bomb or a gun in no way = peace for their main objective is the opposite.

 

[sedonaman]

… What would Islam be without it, maybe one could ask?..

“Islam devotes a great amount of energy to the Kafir [unbeliever]. Not only is the majority (64%) of the Koran devoted to the Kafir, but also nearly all of the Sira (81%) deals with Mohammed’s struggle with them. The Hadith (Traditions) devotes 32% of the text to Kafirs.” politicalislam.com/blog/statistical-islam-part-1-of-9
[see Part 4]
We could speculate that if these parts were removed, Islam might look like a primitive version of Judaism and Christianity combined, in which case there would be nothing unique about it.

 

[Jules_Dell]

To Sunni Muslim
Lets face it,Islam is out to rule world.Europe is now infested with muslims,they couldnt conquer Christian Europe with the sword,now European Union countries let them populate Europe without the sword,God forbid that Turkey get into Europe Union or muslims will be everywhere we turn,the muslims now want their sharia law in Uk,Enoch Powell warned UK about this 40 yers ago and was called a racist and bigot,but his predictions are coming true.The muslims have their no go areas in this land my Christan fought and died for
The muslims in Scotland mostly Pakistanis ,refuse to mix with the Scots people,they breed like rabbits,they want to populate this country with muslims,mosques are springing up in every town,a majority hate our culture but live off it.
A big well known businessman said,Mohammed will return and destroy all the crosses.
Another businessman quoted,We(the muslims) can get your women,but you will never get ours.
Other quotes,You will see disused Churches converted into mosques,but you will never see a mosque converted into a Church(maybe he has never heard that the Spanish tossed the muslims out of Spain and converted their mosques into churches,–glory halleluiah)
The Angel Gabriel,appeared to Mary,and told her she was to be the Mother of God,600 years later , Mohammed claims this Blessed Angel appeared to him and told him he is Gods messenger,this would then make The Angel be a liar ,for he appeared to Mary first 600 years before .Now Gods Angel is no liar,God is no liar,so WHO ? appeared to Mohammed?was it the Devil,who appears in many forms?.That would then make Mohammed a false prophet,The Holy Bible says,Beware of false prophets.
Islam rules by the sword,practically every country today there is unrest ,muslims are involved,in opposition to the other religions of these countries,and persecutes them,India ,China,Somalia Iraq Pakistan Sri Lanka Lebanon Palestine Egypt etc etc etc .
You claim that islam is winning the most converts,not in Scotland,Catholicism is on the increase in Scotland,and UK,thanks to the large influx of Polish People.
The Crusades were necessary at the times to protect the Christian pilgrims and shrines in the Holy Land,from muslim aggression against Christians,we need another Holy Crusade to keep the influx and spread of islam at bay in Europe.

Faith of our Fathers living still,inspite of dungeon fire and sword,
Oh how our hearts beat out with joy,when ere we here that glorious word,
Faith of our fathers living still ,We will be true to thee till death,
We will be true to thee till death

 

[dzheremi]

So much bandwith wasted debating this or that about Islam. Just read some histories from non-Muslim sources of the period of Muhammad’s/Islam’s rise, and you’ll see that of course Islam was spread by the sword, including conversions. (What do you think the devshirme were?)

The first ever mention of Muhammad by name in a non-Muslim source (by 7th century Jacobite author Thomas the Presbyter), concerning the Islamic conquest of Palestine, reads as follows:

In the year 945, indiction 7, on Friday 7 February (634) at the ninth hour, there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Muhammad (tayyaye d-Mhmt) in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled, leaving behind the patrician Bryrdn, whom the Arabs killed. Some 4000 poor villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, Jews and Samaritans. The Arabs ravaged the whole region.

(source)

He further wrote about some of the other conquests:

In the year 947 (635—36), indiction 9, the Arabs invaded the whole of Syria and went down to Persia and conquered it. The Arabs climbed the mountain of Mardin and killed many monks there in the monasteries of Qedar and Bnata. There died the blessed man Simon, doorkeeper of Qedar, brother of Thomas the priest.
In January the people of Homs took the word for their lives and many villages were ravaged by the killing of the Arabs of Muhmd and many people were slain and taken prisoner from Galilee as far as Beth.
On the twenty-sixth of May the Saqilara went from the vicinity of Homs and the Romans chased them.
On the tenth of August the Romans fled from the vicinity of Damascus and there were killed many people, some ten thousand. And at the turn of the year the Romans came. On the twentieth of August in the year nine hundred and forty-seven there gathered in Gabitha a multitude of the Romans, and many people of the Romans were killed, some fifty thousand.

((source)

Thomas the Presbyter was a contemporary witness to these events which ravaged his own homeland. Not much has changed in the places where Islam and Christianity share an uneasy closeness, if you believe the daily, mostly horrific news from Iraq, Egypt, Sudan, Nigeria, etc. This thread is really a non-starter. Its answer is an obvious and authoritative YES, without any unhelpful and irrelevant reference to any other religion’s history!

 

[sedonaman]

…without any unhelpful and irrelevant reference to any other religion’s history!

!!!

 

[lude0r]

So much bandwith wasted debating this or that about Islam. Just read some histories from non-Muslim sources of the period of Muhammad’s/Islam’s rise, and you’ll see that of course Islam was spread by the sword, including conversions. (What do you think the devshirme were?)

The first ever mention of Muhammad by name in a non-Muslim source (by 7th century Jacobite author Thomas the Presbyter), concerning the Islamic conquest of Palestine, reads as follows:

(source)

He further wrote about some of the other conquests:

((source)

Thomas the Presbyter was a contemporary witness to these events which ravaged his own homeland. Not much has changed in the places where Islam and Christianity share an uneasy closeness, if you believe the daily, mostly horrific news from Iraq, Egypt, Sudan, Nigeria, etc. This thread is really a non-starter. Its answer is an obvious and authoritative YES, without any unhelpful and irrelevant reference to any other religion’s history!

Great answer dzheremi…

As well as the sword not being or can not be = to or and attibute of PEACE and LOVE neither can War…And if war is a great attribute of islam then one may question rightly if islam is a true religion from god or maybe it is but the muslims are misinterpreting the religion of god.

sedonaman great information thanks!

“Islam devotes a great amount of energy to the Kafir [unbeliever]. Not only is the majority (64%) of the Koran devoted to the Kafir, but also nearly all of the Sira (81%) deals with Mohammed’s struggle with them. The Hadith (Traditions) devotes 32% of the text to Kafirs.” politicalislam.com/blog/statistical-islam-part-1-of-9
[see Part 4]
We could speculate that if these parts were removed, Islam might look like a primitive version of Judaism and Christianity combined, in which case there would be nothing unique about it.

 

[dzheremi]

I think a lot of problems around this issue is that some people take “the sword” to only be a part of Islam when people are actively being massacred for refusing to convert. I think that this is wrong. While there are many, many, many examples of such behavior in Islam (both historically and in the contemporary world), forcing conversions is a much more complicated matter than simply saying “we will kill you if you don’t accept Islam”. For example, the devshirme I referenced earlier involved the taking of Christian children, prior to adolescence, to be raised as Muslims and used as military or in high positions. Is this forced conversion? Yes. Does it necessarily involve violence? No, but just the same it could not be refused.

So I take “the sword” to be more a metaphorical (and, unfortunately, often literal) idea: Force may be resorted to, but before that there are many steps that can be taken. This was part of Islam’s sophistication, if you will, upon being integrated into non-Arab societies, such that the Berbers and other earlier converts very much were put to the literal sword, while later converts like the Indonesians were ensnared by economic incentive.

It is all the same garbage, as it all results in Islam overtaking everything.

 

[sedonaman]

…So I take “the sword” to be more a metaphorical (and, unfortunately, often literal) idea …

Remember our Muslim poster friend “planten”?

…

The worst thing you have said is that islam was spread by sword. There is no word “Sword” i.e. Saif in the entire Quran.

[It’s in the irritating orange font color.]

 

[dzheremi]

Yeah, I remember that little exchange. Pathetic, i.e., classic Planten.

Remember, folks: Unless the word is there, the reality isn’t!

Of course, this kind of bizarre logic is to be expected when you take into account the bibliolatry that is central to the Islamic religion.

 

[daniel1212]

. This thread is really a non-starter. Its answer is an obvious and authoritative YES,

Thanks for the info.

"But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. " (Galatians 4:29)

Islam is another dead religion doing what it must in trying to conquer.

 

[daniel1212]

Whenever a religion relies upon the arm of man to fight its spiritual battles, such as to silence those in contest it by words, then it manifests that this is what its strength is, as well as by knowing engaging is forgery and deception to that end.

It is not that the violence is wrong, as God mandated it under Moses, but as said, God provided overt manifest evidence that this physical kingdom and its use of the sword of men was of Him, but that age is over, and the only covenant under which God saves is that of the New one, in which the church is not constituted to rule over those without, or wage its wars “after the flesh,” but by the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left… (Jn. 18:36; 1Cor. 5:5,12; 2Cor. 6:6,7; Eph. 6:12 )