Talk:Forced conversion

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 September 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Forced Conversion quotes

I think it's funny how these verses quoted to prove forced conversion in Islam all preceed or are proceeded by other verses that change the meanings of these verses completely. Here are some examples:

Sura (9:29) - Is this a joke? It clearly states that they, the non-Muslims, had a choice of either paying Jizya, a very payable tax (common knowledge, I'll prove it if you challenge this statement), or leaving the Muslim lands. How is that a forced conversion? Clearly biased, and i'm taking this verse off.

Sura (9:5) - Of course, this looks like a very explicit verse that condones forced conversions, but let's take a look at the verse that comes RIGHT BEFORE this verse, "Sura (9:4) Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him]." [1]

Funny, because it clearly states that the Pagans (polytheists) can easily keep from violent ends by just agreeing to treaties with the Muslims and not going against the Muslims (or supporting the Muslim's enemies). It makes perfect sense, basically, don't try to fight us, and we won't try to fight you. Try to fight us, and we will fight and kill you, or you can convert to Islam. Now, is that really a forced conversion? Sure, if you forget all about the part that stated that you can easily avoid this by just making a treaty and agreeing on not supporting the enemies of the Muslims. I mean, in reality, these Pagans are living in Muslim territory. What more can you ask for?

So I'll be taking off the verse Sura (9:5), too.

Now for the verse Sura (9:12). It refers to "them", but in the verse after, Sura (9:13), it says, "Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers." [2]

This clearly states that the Muslims were attacked first in this quarrel, and when attacked first, you may fight back. Not only are the non-Muslims attacking the Muslims, but these non-Muslims are living in Muslim lands, under Muslim rule and law. Of course, they must either leave the lands or repent and convert to Islam. How can you attack the ruler of a country and expect nothing to happen to you outside of being killed? At least the Muslims give the choice of conversion to their religion. Is this really a forced conversion?

I will continue this later, but before I take these verses off, I would like to see other's comments on my critisism of this bias article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.184.192 (talk) 02:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Very nice points. The problem is that historically to my knowledge, these verses have not been applied. Can you name any cases where a treaty has actually been made with unbelievers and actually respected by future Islamic authorities? I don't think so. I think that quoting scriptural authority for various activities and attitudes is a smokescreen in cases like this where the reality in Islamic societies has normally been (and still is) to discriminate against and press conversion on followers of other faiths.--86.26.235.97 (talk) 10:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the forced conversion is not that big issue at present, it is the law of many Islam country that concern me. Especially those Muslims who wants to converts to other religion. In country like Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi arabia, these behaviour will be sentenced to death! Which in my point of view is the most severe discrimination towards non-muslims!

Threat categories

I think that threats of the non-worldly type should be included also. For most religious people the threat of eternal damnation is far more "threatening" than worldly torture, or death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.177.194 (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The comment above was made by me. I decided to make an account so that I can contribute more. (talk)

Please ...

Why is Wikipedia turning into a war zone between Islamophobes and Muslim apologists ? This article has been edited by people with a serious political agenda ... Isn't it possible to discuss things Islamic objectively ? 62.163.6.54 12:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Pope Benedict

The pope recently said:

In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".

What part of the above do the pope's critics object to? Do they object to his accusation that Muslims have sometimes engaged in forced conversion? If so, do they object because they deny forced conversions have taken place, or because they see nothing wrong with them?

Do they object to the pope's Western-style limitation on the nature of God? Does Islam regard God as having no limits, not binding himself to reason or free will or mercy, etc.? --Uncle Ed 17:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of forced conversion to Islam

The following 2 subsections were deleted "with pop-ups" as if they were Wikipedia:Simple vandalism. But they contain normal content, don't they?

In Indonesia

In the Malacca islands, Christians are being forced to convert to ISlam [3].

In Pakistan

In Pakistan Hindu girls are reportedly raped and forced to convert to ISlam

[4].

Considering that the chief objection to the pope's recent remarks about "conversion by the sword" is the claim that Muslims never EVER used coercion to gain or keep cenverts, quotes like the above are relevant.

If YOU disagree, then please post other quotes that refute these. But don't deleted adequately sourced, relevant information just because it "advances a point of view" you disagree with. Uncle Ed 20:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I would merely like to suggest that, while it is quite possible that such incidents occur, unless they are cited as taking place by neutral observers - by which I mean government agencies or human rights agencies - they should not be mentioned in an otherwise controversial encyclopaedia article. The Indonesia example in particular is from domini.org, which is a problematic source. Thanks for your patience, and I apologise for not explaining my removal, which I thought I had.Hornplease 07:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither source is sufficient. For statements as potentially controversial these Amnesty International or major media outlets (national televion station, major newspaper, national news agency) would be the appropriate kind of source. Itsmejudith 13:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I see that Judith is correct. While the (twice) deleted quotes above may have gotten us started in the right direction, there are inadequate and ultimately not usable.

If Islam has been using force to recruit or retain adherents, there should be dozens or hundreds of solidly-researched sources like history books. Ditto for Christianity - hey, even an ignoramus like me has heard of the Crusades... ^_^ --Uncle Ed 16:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing merge tags

There is no evidence of any discussion of the proposed merger either here or Talk:Religious Intolerance. So the merge tag's being removed. JASpencer 14:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Qu'ranic treatment of Jews

I have a few reservations over this line "The Muslim attitude toward Jews is reflected in various verses throughout the Koran, the holy book of the Islamic faith. "They [the Children of Israel] were consigned to humiliation and wretchedness. They brought the wrath of God upon themselves, and this because they used to deny God's signs and kill His Prophets unjustly and because they disobeyed and were transgressors" (Sura 2:61). According to the Koran, the Jews try to introduce corruption (5:64), have always been disobedient (5:78), and are enemies of Allah, the Prophet and the angels (2:97­98)."

Surah 2:61 reads "and remember ye said: 'O Moses! We cannot endure One kind of food (always);So beseech they Lord for us what the earth groweth-it's pot herbs and cucumbers, its garlic lentils and onions' He said 'Will ye exchange the better for the worse? Go ye down to any town and ye shall find what ye want!' They were convered with humiliation and misery; they drew on themselves the wrath of allah. This is because they went on rejecting the signs of allah and slaying his messengers without just cause. This because they rebelled and went on transgressing" To me this verse signifies the view of rebellious children of Israel, not all Jews in general (Moses was a Jew no?) It also completely fails to point out the very next verse which states

Surah 2:62 "Those who believe (in the Qu'ran) and follow the Jewish (scriptures) and the Christians and the Sabians-any who believe in Allah and the last day and work righteousness shall have thier reward with thier lord; on them shall be no fear; nor shall they grieve"

Which undermines the proposed theory

Verse 5:78 reads

5:78 "Curses were pronounced on those among the children of Israel who rejected faith"

I don't think this is trying to say that all Jews are by thier nature disobedient, just that rebellious children of israel were cursed.

Verses 2:97-98 do not even mention Jews.

Also note that this article is on the specific nature of historic conversion to Islam, and whether or not the Qu'ran says that Jews are disobedient or corrupt is irrelevant to the topic, and should instead be included in the Islamic view of Judaism article. I'm removing the statement

Sources

The sources for this article are at present nowhere near what is required in Wikipedia. As this is largely a historical article, can I suggest we stick to books and scholarly articles by historians. For the current views of the various religions, books by theologians would also be appropriate. For current allegations of forced conversion, major human rights organisations and/or reliable news sources. Does this meet with everyone's agreement? Itsmejudith 10:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Validity of forced conversion:

A man convinced against his will

Is of the same opinion still

Was it a Christian author who wrote this couplet? --Uncle Ed 16:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As for sources, I like Judith's ideas. Claims by politicians are the least encyclopedic and should not be considered "sources" but rather "comments". We might want to have a separate article on the Politics of forced conversion or the Forced conversion controversy, highlighting and summarizing politicians' and activists's views. This relates to the pope's (failed?) attempt in 2006 to start a dialogue on faith and reason. --Uncle Ed 16:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Uncle Ed. NB that Hornplease has also made helpful contributions on the same lines. Perhaps rather than proceeding straight away to a further article there could be a section here on the controversy, starting with the many points that were made in the mainstream media (West and East). Itsmejudith 18:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I found this in a subscription-only website:

. . . the Quran does not equate jihad with holy war. This interpretation of jihad developed years later after Muhammad’s death when it came to be used by rulers (caliphs) to justify their wars of imperial expansion and rule in the name of Islam. [5]

Perhaps "forced conversion" is the wrong article to mention this? --Uncle Ed 21:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as it stands this is a point for the jihad article. And there is no need to cite this website when the same point is made by many historians.

Which brings me to a point about the sub-section Forced Conversion of Jews in the Islam section. The first paragraph is a very general point not directly relevant to forced conversion. Second paragraph is sourced to Bat Ye'or, who I would argue is not a reliable source for WP purposes. I cannot find any reference anywhere else to this allegation against Harun Al-Rashid. And as Harun Al-Rashid was one of the califs regarded by Muslims as "rightly guided" and by non-Muslims as a civilised and tolerant ruler, it is not a negligible matter. Does anyone reading this have access to the book where Bat Ye'or says this? If so, could you look up what her source is for the statement? Thanks. Itsmejudith 12:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Revert of edits to the Islam section

I reverted the most recent changes to the Islam section, as I believe they where a clear attempt to whitewash these issues against Wikipedias policies regarding neutrality. Unreferenced POV claims such as "The general position in Islam is that forced conversions are not acceptable" should have no place in this article, and misrepresenting sources such as this, http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=34770&ln=eng where Ibn Baaz clearly support forces conversions: "Obliging a person to adhere to the truth in which is guidance and happiness is better for him than falsehood. Just as a person may be forced to do the duty that he owes to other people even if that is by means of imprisonment or beating, so forcing the kaafirs to believe in Allaah alone and enter into the religion of Islam is more important and more essential, because this will lead to their happiness in this world and in the Hereafter." should not have any place in this article either. -- Karl Meier 15:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not accuse editors of "whitewashing". NPOV policy means that the encyclopedia does not state a view either way. I put in the introductory statement because I thought the point was generally accepted by all but if it is disputed then let us not have an introductory statement. See below for my point about Ibn Baaz.Itsmejudith 18:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that I am making a valid point above about the mentioned editing above, and if what is being done is to whitewash the issue according to an Islam apologist point of view, then there is nothing wrong with pointing that out. Also, I don't see why we should remove the introduction because the issue is disputed. It is an important point in itself that the issue is disputed. -- Karl Meier 19:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added some other journal articles, which clearly state that classical stance on forced conversions is that it cannot be done. Though, if Salafis have some other ideas, this definitely deserves space in wikipedia, but should only be given space according to acceptance of that belief in scholarly circles. TruthSpreader^reply 18:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Karen Armstrong's comment

Karen armstrong's comment is related to forced conversion by the Government and not by the individuals. I am inserting another scholarly opinion over it. If someone thinks that this has to be NPOVed, he/she is most welcome to do so. TruthSpreader^reply 18:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As long as the claim that "nobody in the Islamic empire was forced to accept the Islamic faith" stands, the tag must stay too. This sentence is saying that literally nobody was ever ever ever forced in the Islamic Empire, which means conservatively speaking from Muhammad's death in 632 until the fall of the Caliphate in 1258. And it doesn't say forced by the government or local rulers but forced in general. Is there really anyone who wouldn't call this ridiculous. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Baaz reference

I intend to take out the reference to Ibn Baaz's views because it is to a website that may not be reliable. There is no guarantee of the quality of the translation into English or whether the source is quoted selectively. Ibn Baaz's opinion on forced conversion is notable, however, and a reference could go back in if, for example, a statement by him has been translated by a scholar and published in a book in English.Itsmejudith 18:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If you do that then I intend to revert you on sight. There is no policy that says that all information from website is per definition unreliable, and that we can't use the opinions of famous scholars because it has been published on a website. What should however be taken out is the opinions of Karen Armstrong. She is not a WP:RS and her opinions is irrelevant to a serious Encyclopedia. -- Karl Meier 19:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If someone wants to cite Ibn Baaz, find a reliable source on what he said. Even the most reliable source can't be cited from an unreliable web site. Leadwind 04:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Crusades

The problem with the Crusades passage is that the Crusades simply were not about converting anyone to anything but about ensuring unhindered access to the Holy places. Some people might suffer from this misconception that the Crusades were about conversions but that doesn't make it true. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Before anyone asks. I deleted it as it was not based in fact. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Str, the Crusades were not simply about any one thing. Wars aren't. Itsmejudith 23:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The crusades had certain objectives - the liberation of Jerusalem, assistance to the Eastern Empire. Conversion of any non-Christians, let alone forced conversion, was not among them. Neither did attempts to convert anyone play any significant role in the Crusades, with the one exception of anti-jewish violance outside of the official crusades. May I also point out that the text had a huge pro-Islam slant when it stated: "The spread of Islam stands in contrast to the actions of the followers of Christianity, who since the time of the Emperor Constantine have made liberal use of the sword" - this basically says that Islamic spread was peaceful while Christians all the time used violence. Obviously, Christians have used violance (and actual examples should be used) but this depiction here turned black into white and vice versa, considering how Jerusalem and other lands first become Muslim (i.e. ruled by Muslims, not Muslim in regard to the population). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather than bandy around assertions, what citations can be provided on this (both directions). --Nachtrabe 18:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Definition

I think the definition in the intro is wrong. Conversion is the acceptance of a certain religion, not the repudiation of one. One converts to Christianity, to Islam, to Buddhism etc. With forced conversions this is also the objective of the one using force: he wants someone to adopt his religion and not merely make him leave another. The intro should reflect that. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be another problem too, by having the definition just be someone being "threatened" with negative consequences, it introduces the idea that in a vauge way, even just telling someone that they'd not go to heaven in some manner without being an adherant of the religion would amount to a forced conversion. This would apply to most of the world's religions, even eastern ones with reincarnation often propose that without living like an adherant of their religion, you'll be turned into a blade of grass or something in your "next life" or whatever and not enter Nirvana and all that jazz. While the range given does seem to perhaps exclude this possiblity, many religions would propose that you are dying in another way worse than normal death by dying without being a member of that religion. This introduction seems highly open to mis-interpretation, where did it come from anyway? Homestarmy 19:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. It should be amended to be restricted to "worldly" consequences. Any suggestions how to put this.

The current version was written by yours truly after I had posted here. The former version, about which I complained can be seen in the history. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Koran quotes

Rather cherry-picky aren't we? Why not put those lines which tell Muslim armies to protect non-muslims.

As I understand it, pretty much all of those lines are from earlier parts of the Qu'ran and abrogated by later verses, or are themselves abrogated by different popular interpretations of the Hadiths. Homestarmy 15:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Quran clearly authorizes force in conversion: See Surah's 9:29, 2:193. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.143.42 (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Current muslim stuff

Not entirely comfortable with that being in the article, and it reeks of WP:NPOV issues. In short, it doesn't come off as neutral - but that's my opinion. Can somebody either clean it up or remove it, please? --Dennisthe2 16:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The bottom half seems well-referenced, but the top half...well...not so much :/. Homestarmy 19:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Took out the unsourced allegations and cleaned up the sourced ones to reflect sources accurately. A careful check needs to be kept that only allegations reported in the mainstream press or by neutral NGOs are mentioned. Itsmejudith 18:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with the references in the top half?Bless sins 21:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Karl Maier can you explain this revert:[6]?

How is the source you are adding in any way a reliable source?Bless sins (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC Islam-qa website

Is the Islam qa website a reliable source for rulings in Islamic law?

Response from Lester

'Islam QA' is definitely not a reliable source, as its format is rather blog-style. That is, quick answers to questions written on the run. It is not an in-depth type of website. The site is basically a forum. The citation used was merely a quick response to "Question #34770" which someone submitted. I think we should only use authoritative sources, not blogs, not forums, and not quick 'question & answer' websites. Thanks, --Lester 23:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Response from (involved) Itaqallah

the issue is not necessarily whether or not the website is reliable (i don't think it is on this article), the issue is why one scholar (presuming the website's attribution to him has been correct) out of literally thousands has been chosen and had his view presented alongside the majority (and academic) view, as if they are of equal prevelance. hence this is a case of undue weight. ITAQALLAH 16:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It is true that the issue of WP:Undue weight comes into this. We should state what the prevailing view of the religion as a whole believes. The dominant / major viewpoint. In any religion, you can always find some scholar in some country who's opinion is different from the majority. However, this would be a minority viewpoint. For example, the recently inserted information says "Some Muslim scholars believe that Islam forbids forced conversion", which would not be accurate if the majority viewpoint in Islam is against forced conversion. Similarly, it then stated "Other scholars such as Shaykh Ibn Baaz, however, reject this idea", which is also not balanced, as it uses the plural "scholars" while only citing a single scholar, and it is worded in present tense when the only scholar cited is not alive any more, and therefore of the past. So the majority viewpoint is what represents Islam today, not a minority opinion from the past.--Lester 20:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Response from leadwind

IslamQA doesn't look like a reliable source as it's not scholarly and apparently self-published. If the issue isn't the web site's reliablility, what is it, exactly? Leadwind 04:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"No compulsion in religion"

The article Kein Zwang im Glauben on the German wikipedia on this phrase informs the reader in the introduction paragraph that the verse has been abrogated by classic exegesis and later mentions Sura 9, 73 as an example. How accurate is this claim? --84.137.40.109 (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism

I have removed the short section on Buddhism because it does not describe forced conversion to Buddhism. The only example cited is that of the persecution of Christians in Japan under the Tokugawa Shogunate. This did not involve forced conversion to Buddhism. Rather, the authorities considered the Roman Catholic Church to be a subversive force and therefore suppressed Roman Catholicism. They did not care whether people were Buddhists; they only cared that they were not Catholic. It is therefore an example of religious persecution, but not an example of forced conversion to Buddhism.Bill (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

Please us only reliable soruces in the article. Thereligionofpeace.com is not considered a reliable source. Also don't interpret Qur'anic verses or hadith to make a point, only scholars can do that, not wikipedians.Bless sins (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The kidnap of two journalists should be under twenty century allegations, not islam, and certainly not both. I have removed it from the islam section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEasyWay8 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)