What exactly are you talking about? Compelle intrare is a term used by St. Augustine for how one should treat Christian schismatics, not non-Christians. If you’re claiming that Christians were more likely to force conversion than Muslims, can you provide some support for this claim?
One thing that often upsets me is the double standards my fellow Catholics have. I’m not saying you are and I’m not saying most people do it deliberately, just that this quote reminded me (and I have a few minutes) and so I thought I’d share some thoughts.
It seems odd that some amongst us Catholics are so critical of the ‘tolerance’ of Islamic history. Whilst it certainly has its dark times, compared to its comparitive Europe it was really quite liberal. Maybe general rights of the dhimma were not quite up to the standard of the modern concept of ‘freedom of religion,’ but it would seem naive to think a rich tradition like Islam can’t accomodate such a view as Christiaity has. Especially when it has such priciples within itself.
There are fine examples like the covenant in Madina where Jews are described as part of
one community' (Clause 1), and it is affirmed that a Jew who follows the Muslims has the same right as them to help and support (Clause 16). On the other hand, religious diversity is recognised and tolerated: . . . To the Jews their religion and to the Muslims their religion . . .’(Clause 25); and `It is for the Jews to bear their expenses and for the Muslims to bear their expenses. There is to be [mutual] ``help’’ between them against whoever wars against the people of this document. Between them there is to be [mutual] giving of advice, consultation, and honourable dealing, not treachery . . .’ (Clause 37).
Admittedly this idillic Madina was rarely actualised, but none the less it exists within their tradition and so it is a matter of merely reviving it (which many Muslims are or have tried to do). This ideal has lived on in the Muslim conscience and whilst some practice may be at variance with it, it has been reflected in their literature.
The chapter Al-Siyar in Al Hidaya (one oth the most authorotative works in the Hanafi school) makes interesting reading:
If non Muslims pay the jizya they have ‘the same right as Muslims.’
Non payment of the jizya does not invalidate agreement only joining the enemy
Its only due on free able bodied adult males, even monks and the poor are excempt (even the cost is small)
A Muslim in Dar al Har or Dar al Amn (Abode of trust, what the West is) are not to be treacherous and must observe the laws of the land as a sacred trust.
Churches/synagogues etc can’t be newly built but can be repaired or rebuilt
In the chapter on Hadd it states that a forced conversion is invalid so that if one were to revert they would not have any punishment.
Perhaps its worth noting that Dar al Islam is defined here, by Abu Hanifa, as anywhere where Muslims are not stopped from praying.
The whole book is really quite brief relative to the Dhimma and all the ‘2nd class citizen’ stuff is not really apparent (i.e. its got flexibility in terms of law and much we see in history is due to whatever government is in at the time).
If you trawl through all the books of jurisprudence then you’'ll find less understanding opinions, but they are not the norm (they are really there as discussion points between teacher and student). Generally the scholars of Islam have enjoyed healthy debate, but this does not mean its all available to the masses - traditionally. The masses on the whole only got the ‘mu’tamad’ positions, as articulated above.
Compelle Intrare (lead them in), as you say, was something Augustine mentioned as a commentary of Lk 14:12-24 relative to schismatics. He was against violence, as is clear, and by this coersive measure saw it more as economic penalties for wealthy heretics and whipping for the poor to try and ‘lead them in’ to the truth. However, during the Medieval period heretic became synonomous with apostate and then really with infidel and this ‘doctrine’ took on a new form.
When the Christians became the Imperium Christiana the Roman concept of sycritism, or a common belief for political stability, which had been the Emporer cult was repalced with Christianity. This is evident from the declaration of the Nicene Creed at the start of Justinians Law code (The medievals most influencial law book), that Christianity is the State religion and that which defines it. There are some interesting laws in there like should someone convert they loose all their assests and should anyone try to convert someone or throw stones at one who has converted then they are to be burned at the stake.
After the revival of Roman law and its Christianising as Canon Law during the Papal revolution (after 1075) then compelle intrare became used more and more to justify crusades (not just to the Levant) and the inquisition. Heresy became not only a sin, but also the crime of treason to the Papal state, like the Roman law of ‘lese majeste,’ and people were burnt (there is evidence this practice started in the 5th Century, though took off generally much later on).
Now we can try and ‘apologise’ or even deny it, but there is no escaping that this is part of our past. The reality was little like the emotive works that are in popular circulation, but stll somewhat ‘disturbing’ for us. Really it is just an affront to modern sensibilities not pre-modern (they had no problem with it). Personally I don’t have a problem with this history at all, it was just a different mindeset. Now we have a new one and Christianity can accomodate it.
As the Arabs saying goes: ‘if you don’t fight the Byzantines, they’ll fight you.’ Relations weren’t exactly good.
Would it not be better to say because we do not agree with the many interpretations of man through many man made churchs.