Posted on 03/14/2006 5:58:55 PM PST by Louisiana
Can a devout Muslim be an American patriot and a loyal citizen?
Consider this:
Theologically, no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia.
Scripturally, no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).
Geographically, no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially, no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.
Politically, no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically, no, because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).
Religiously, no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)
Intellectually, no, because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically, no, because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co - exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually, no, because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as our heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran's 99 excellent names.
Therefore after much study and deliberation....perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both good Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish...it's still the truth. If you find yourself intellectually in agreement with the above, perhaps you will share this with your friends. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country.
To prove to the Armadillo that it can be done?
Because the issue I was reponding to was how can we really tell that a seemingly good Muslim isn't just a liar waiting to murder infidels. My response is that we have that problem with everyone, not just Muslims. How do we really know that someone who professes to be a good Christian isn't a mass murder? We don't. But somehow we manage to life life without distrusting all Christians.
Christianity didn't TELL the BTK to do violence. Islam DOES.
Some Muslims claim it does. Other claim it doesn't. Some Christians claim the Bible tells them to do violence. In the big scheme of things it takes more than a religion to turn a person into an angel or a sociopath.
You want to examine the BTK with his 'religion', yet keep Muslim terrorists apart from theirs.
My point is that professed religion is irrelevant for trust. Maybe good Muslims are bad Muslims but there are still good Muslims. Maybe BTK was a bad Christian, but nobody could tell. That's why it's absurd to rely on a single high-level categorization like this. It is the DOCTRINE that is at fault with Islam. It is the doctrine that is terrorizing the world now, because it's being obeyed.
There are Muslims who disagree over what the DOCTRINE demands of them. As others have pointed out, it's no mistake that a lot of the fanaticism comes from Arab culture or other provincial tribal cultures (e.g., the Taliban). A lot of the more urbane and educated Muslims are not nearly so militant or fanatical. You'll find militant and violent Christian groups (e.g., Christian Identity movement) recruiting from the same sorts of demographic groups in the US for the same reasons. It has less to do with religion than you think.
If someone in my church is the next BTK - he is an ABERRATION and my religion does not condone and applaud him.
The question was one of trust, not how well a person is following their religion. My point was that you can't really know that any person, whether they call themselves Christian or Muslim, is not really evil in their heart if they are willing to lie and hide it well enough.
Show me a cleric that encouraged that serial killing.
Open a history book. You can find plenty of Christian clerics historically calling for the equivalent of "jihad". As I pointed out in another thread, it wasn't a Muslim who coined the phrase, "Kill them all and God will know his own."
The world is FULL of Imams who are encouraging 'jihad'.
Correct. And that's a problem. There are also plenty of Muslims who have no interest in their brand of "jihad". There is a reason why they are starting to send retarded people out to blow themselves up. Apparently most Muslims are not eager to be martyrs for the militants.
One does not have to be a Muslim to be a liar- but Islam is the only 'religion' that ENCOURAGES lying.
Is that from the Koran, Hadiths, or Sunna? Do all Muslims believe that as a matter of doctrine or only some?
I'm not sure they did not. my point simply was in reply to another poster, that Kurds celebrated the fall of Baghdad for their own reasons which had nothing to do with loyalty to America. But no one has stepped up to answer my question either. In any case, it has nothing to do with patriotism, which the topic of the thread is about.
If Kurds are loyal and patriotic citizens while being devout moslems, one guy thinks I'll find them in Dubai for some reason. I don't get that, but then I don't get a lot of what comes up on some of these threads.
NO
Plenty of Christians and Jews managed to pull it off despite long histories of orthodoxy and even fanaticism. It won't happen under the current climate but it could happen in a more open client, like that found in the United States.
I do not know if it would be right, but I would have theoretically rained overwhelming and withering firepower upon the hypothetical "you" before the threat was in my house. Just sayin'.
There have been periods of history where minorites (e.g., Greek Orthodox, Jews) preferred to be ruled by Muslims rather than Christians because they were treated more fairly by the Muslims. A Muslim majority is bad for cultural reasons that do not necessarily have anything to do with Islam. I have little doubt that if we managed to convert every Afghani warlord and Saudi oil baron into Christians tomorrow, I would still be unpleasant to be controlled by them because the problem transcends their religion. And I again point out that Lebanon had a Muslim and Christian split government that made it the Riviera of the Middle East until militant Muslims moved in and decided to use it as a platform to attack Israel. Iran was doing pretty well under that Shah and, for the region, Turkey is doing pretty well exactly because it insists on seperating religion from government. A Christian theocracy wouldn't be much fun, either.
So, from your perspective it is real conversion that stops militant religious movements."
No,it is brute force or threat of.We weren't talking about a "militant religious movement".
But were, say, the Crusades stopped because everyone had a true conversion experience?
Which Crusades? First? second? third? Mongolian and Mameluk?
or the Islamic crusades that preceded all the Christian crusades?
no, That was a statement of fact. If you feel all Muslim Arabs should be suspect and removed from this country, that is a racist statement. That train of thought led the US to intern Japanese Americans from the west coast who had committed no crime. Many of the inmate's sons were fighting in the European theatre while their families were moved to the Southeast.
Playing the race card implies blaming race when it is not the issue. I did not do that here. Please read the entire reply before posting back to me. It will make you look less neanderthal in the long run.
History 101 was not your strong suit. Amil Ataturk fully understood the implications of theocracy. I would caution you for citing Turkey as a bastion of democracy. Turkey is NOT a constitutional Republic. Please draw two more cards and ante up.
I asked if you could show me a cleric- RELATED TO THE BTK- that condoned or applauded what he did.
You tell me to open a HISTORY book???
Open a phonebook. Or a newspaper. Did the leaders of his Church condone the murders? The BTK's fellow 'Christians' did not encourage, condone, or applaud what he did.
We're comparing religions, and the presence of evil people within them, in the NOW.
That serial killer's minister or priest did not urge him to kill.
ISLAMIC CLERICS are doing that NOW.In mosques all over the world.
In history AND now.
All religions have reprehensible things in their PASTS.
Islams PRESENT is reprehensible.
But, I notice you're from New Jersey. Whole LOT of Muslims there. That explains a lot about your sympathies and diversionary reasoning.
Did I claim it was? Did I claim Iran under the Shah was? I claimed it's doing pretty well for the region and was secular, not Islamic. But while we are on the topic of constitutional Republics, that's the real hinge issue, isn't it? Would you want to live under any non-Muslim government that wasn't organized that way? Did Christian theocracies really fare much better than Muslim ones? Do nominally Christian dictatorships really fare much better than Muslim ones?
Try reading what I've written, not what you wish I had written.
You are so enlightened that I am trembling. Somehow, I will find a way to refute your claim that there was not one single Japanese national that was loyal to the Emperor anywhere on the US west coast. My maternal grandmother was conscripted to the Army Air Force via the United States Postal Service. She was provided with aircraft silhouette charts, and binoculars. She was also provided with information regarding specific individuals and groups that were sympathetic to Hirohito. We had a family member that was married to an individual that was incarcerated in Utah. How DARE you claim that no crimes were committed. You have never even seen ration coupons. This is why you worship presidential war powers, and hide from congressional War declaration. You deserve to have Islam over run you. As for me and mine, we will never submit.
And that point is irrelevant to the point I was making or the general point you were making.
Open a phonebook. Or a newspaper. Did the leaders of his Church condone the murders? The BTK's fellow 'Christians' did not encourage, condone, or applaud what he did.
No. Did I claim that they did? I was addressing the issue of whether we can trust people because they call themselves Muslims. I want to know if we can trust people because they call themselves Christians.
We're comparing religions, and the presence of evil people within them, in the NOW.
Correct. But if you want to address the role that the religion plays in whether the people currently claiming affiliation with that religion are good or evil, then historical context is relevant.
That serial killer's minister or priest did not urge him to kill.
No. Nobody did. That's my point. You don't need someone telling you to be a killer to be a killer.
ISLAMIC CLERICS are doing that NOW.In mosques all over the world. In history AND now.
Yet many muslims don't become killers. And the question remains wether those clerics really represent the true face of their faith or the only possible face of their faith any more than the historical Christians who supported the murder of Jews represented the true face of Christianity.
All religions have reprehensible things in their PASTS. Islams PRESENT is reprehensible.
At one point, those reprehensible things were the PRESENT for Christianity. The question is whether Islam will continue to be that way in the FUTURE.
But, I notice you're from New Jersey. Whole LOT of Muslims there. That explains a lot about your sympathies and diversionary reasoning.
I won't bother to defame everyone who just happens to live in the same place that you do. I'll simply point out that you certainly seem to be attracted to simplistic explanations for everything that don't involve a lot of details or distinctions. Yeah, I think the way I do just because I'm from New Jersey. All Muslims are liars just because they are Muslims. Do you also tell the good guys from the bad guys based on what color hat they wear?
I suppose I should also point out how bizarre it is to assume I know less about Muslims and you know more about Muslims because I have more contact with and experience with Muslims than you do. The less you know about something, the more your opinion should be trusted about it?
Pay your tax, and enjoy your subservient position. My progeny and I will fight you to the death. Guess who will be triumphant.
We will employ a partial timeline spanning up to the first European response to Islamic imperialism, when Pope Urban II launched his own Crusade in 1095. The timeline mostly stays within the parameters of the Greater Middle East. The data in bold print are of special interest for revealing early Islamic atrocities, their belief in heroism in warfare, or politics today.
The Islamic Crusades were very successful. The Byzantines and Persian Empires had worn themselves out with fighting, so a power vacuum existed. Into this vacuum stormed Islam.
After the timeline, two questions are posed, which are answered at length
The Timeline
630 Two years before Muhammad’s death of a fever, he launches the Tabuk Crusades, in which he led 30,000 jihadists against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a report that a huge army had amassed to attack Arabia, but the report turned out to be a false rumor. The Byzantine army never materialized. He turned around and went home, but not before extracting “agreements” from northern tribes. They could enjoy the “privilege” of living under Islamic “protection” (read: not be attacked by Islam), if they paid a tax (jizya).
This tax sets the stage for Muhammad’s and the later Caliphs’ policies. If the attacked city or region did not want to convert to Islam, then they paid a jizya tax. If they converted, then they paid a zakat tax. Either way, money flowed back to the Islamic treasury in Arabia or to the local Muslim governor.
632-634 Under the Caliphate of Abu Bakr the Muslim Crusaders reconquer and sometimes conquer for the first time the polytheists of Arabia. These Arab polytheists had to convert to Islam or die. They did not have the choice of remaining in their faith and paying a tax. Islam does not allow for religious freedom.
633 The Muslim Crusaders, led by Khalid al-Walid, a superior but bloodthirsty military commander, whom Muhammad nicknamed the Sword of Allah for his ferocity in battle (Tabari, 8:158 / 1616-17), conquer the city of Ullays along the Euphrates River (in today’s Iraq). Khalid captures and beheads so many that a nearby canal, into which the blood flowed, was called Blood Canal (Tabari 11:24 / 2034-35).
634 At the Battle of Yarmuk in Syria the Muslim Crusaders defeat the Byzantines. Today Osama bin Laden draws inspiration from the defeat, and especially from an anecdote about Khalid al-Walid. An unnamed Muslim remarks: “The Romans are so numerous and the Muslims so few.” To this Khalid retorts: “How few are the Romans, and how many the Muslims! Armies become numerous only with victory and few only with defeat, not by the number of men. By God, I would love it . . . if the enemy were twice as many” (Tabari, 11:94 / 2095). Osama bin Ladin quotes Khalid and says that his fighters love death more than we in the West love life. This philosophy of death probably comes from a verse like Sura 2:96. Muhammad assesses the Jews: “[Prophet], you are sure to find them [the Jews] clinging to life more eagerly than any other people, even polytheists” (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004; first insertion in brackets is Haleem’s; the second mine).
634-644 The Caliphate of Umar ibn al-Khattab, who is regarded as particularly brutal.
635 Muslim Crusaders besiege and conquer of Damascus
636 Muslim Crusaders defeat Byzantines decisively at Battle of Yarmuk.
637 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iraq at the Battle of al-Qadisiyyah (some date it in 635 or 636)
638 Muslim Crusaders conquer and annex Jerusalem, taking it from the Byzantines.
638-650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iran, except along Caspian Sea.
639-642 Muslim Crusaders conquer Egypt.
641 Muslim Crusaders control Syria and Palestine.
643-707 Muslim Crusaders conquer North Africa.
644 Caliph Umar is assassinated by a Persian prisoner of war; Uthman ibn Affan is elected third Caliph, who is regarded by many Muslims as gentler than Umar.
644-650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Cyprus, Tripoli in North Africa, and establish Islamic rule in Iran, Afghanistan, and Sind.
656 Caliph Uthman is assassinated by disgruntled Muslim soldiers; Ali ibn Abi Talib, son-in-law and cousin to Muhammad, who married the prophet’s daughter Fatima through his first wife Khadija, is set up as Caliph.
656 Battle of the Camel, in which Aisha, Muhammad’s wife, leads a rebellion against Ali for not avenging Uthman’s assassination. Ali’s partisans win.
657 Battle of Siffin between Ali and Muslim governor of Jerusalem, arbitration goes against Ali
661 Murder of Ali by an extremist; Ali’s supporters acclaim his son Hasan as next Caliph, but he comes to an agreement with Muawiyyah I and retires to Medina.
661-680 the Caliphate of Muawiyyah I. He founds Umayyid dynasty and moves capital from Medina to Damascus
673-678 Arabs besiege Constantinople, capital of Byzantine Empire
680 Massacre of Hussein (Muhammad’s grandson), his family, and his supporters in Karbala, Iraq.
691 Dome of the Rock is completed in Jerusalem, only six decades after Muhammad’s death.
705 Abd al-Malik restores Umayyad rule.
710-713 Muslim Crusaders conquer the lower Indus Valley.
711-713 Muslim Crusaders conquer Spain and impose the kingdom of Andalus. This article recounts how Muslims today still grieve over their expulsion 700 years later. They seem to believe that the land belonged to them in the first place.
719 Cordova, Spain, becomes seat of Arab governor
732 The Muslim Crusaders stopped at the Battle of Poitiers; that is, Franks (France) halt Arab advance
749 The Abbasids conquer Kufah and overthrow Umayyids
756 Foundation of Umayyid amirate in Cordova, Spain, setting up an independent kingdom from Abbasids
762 Foundation of Baghdad
785 Foundation of the Great Mosque of Cordova
789 Rise of Idrisid amirs (Muslim Crusaders) in Morocco; foundation of Fez; Christoforos, a Muslim who converted to Christianity, is executed.
800 Autonomous Aghlabid dynasty (Muslim Crusaders) in Tunisia
807 Caliph Harun al-Rashid orders the destruction of non-Muslim prayer houses and of the church of Mary Magdalene in Jerusalem
809 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sardinia, Italy
813 Christians in Palestine are attacked; many flee the country
831 Muslim Crusaders capture Palermo, Italy; raids in Southern Italy
850 Caliph al-Matawakkil orders the destruction of non-Muslim houses of prayer
855 Revolt of the Christians of Hims (Syria)
837-901 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sicily, raid Corsica, Italy, France
869-883 Revolt of black slaves in Iraq
909 Rise of the Fatimid Caliphate in Tunisia; these Muslim Crusaders occupy Sicily, Sardinia
928-969 Byzantine military revival, they retake old territories, such as Cyprus (964) and Tarsus (969)
937 The Ikhshid, a particularly harsh Muslim ruler, writes to Emperor Romanus, boasting of his control over the holy places
937 The Church of the Resurrection (known as Church of Holy Sepulcher in Latin West) is burned down by Muslims; more churches in Jerusalem are attacked
960 Conversion of Qarakhanid Turks to Islam
966 Anti-Christian riots in Jerusalem
969 Fatimids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Egypt and found Cairo
c. 970 Seljuks enter conquered Islamic territories from the East
973 Israel and southern Syria are again conquered by the Fatimids
1003 First persecutions by al-Hakim; the Church of St. Mark in Fustat, Egypt, is destroyed
1009 Destruction of the Church of the Resurrection by al-Hakim (see 937)
1012 Beginning of al-Hakim’s oppressive decrees against Jews and Christians
1015 Earthquake in Palestine; the dome of the Dome of the Rock collapses
1031 Collapse of Umayyid Caliphate and establishment of 15 minor independent dynasties throughout Muslim Andalus
1048 Reconstruction of the Church of the Resurrection completed
1050 Creation of Almoravid (Muslim Crusaders) movement in Mauretania; Almoravids (aka Murabitun) are coalition of western Saharan Berbers; followers of Islam, focusing on the Quran, the hadith, and Maliki law.
1055 Seljuk Prince Tughrul enters Baghdad, consolidation of the Seljuk Sultanate
1055 Confiscation of property of Church of the Resurrection
1071 Battle of Manzikert, Seljuk Turks (Muslim Crusaders) defeat Byzantines and occupy much of Anatolia
1071 Turks (Muslim Crusaders) invade Palestine
1073 Conquest of Jerusalem by Turks (Muslim Crusaders)
1075 Seljuks (Muslim Crusaders) capture Nicea (Iznik) and make it their capital in Anatolia
1076 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) conquer western Ghana
1085 Toledo is taken back by Christian armies
1086 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) send help to Andalus, Battle of Zallaca
1090-1091 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) occupy all of Andalus except Saragossa and Balearic Islands
1094 Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus I asks western Christendom for help against Seljuk invasions of his territory; Seljuks are Muslim Turkish family of eastern origins; see 970
1095 Pope Urban II preaches first Crusade; they capture Jerusalem in 1099
So it is only after all of the Islamic aggressive invasions that Western Christendom launches its first Crusades.
It could be argued that sometimes the Byzantine and Western European leaders did not behave exemplarily, so a timeline on that subject could be developed. And sometimes the Muslims behaved exemplarily. Both are true. However, the goal of this timeline is to balance out the picture more clearly. Many people regard Islam as an innocent victim, and the Byzantines and Europeans as bullies. This was not always the case.
Moreover, we should take a step back and look at the big picture. If Islam had stayed in Arabia and had not waged wars of conquest, then no troubles would have erupted. But the truth is this: Islam moved aggressively during the Caliphates of Abu Bakr and Umar in the seventh century, with other Caliphs continuing well beyond that; only then did the Western Europeans react (see 1094).
It must be noted that Islamic expansion continues until well into the seventeenth century. For example, the Muslims Crusaders conquer Constantinople in 1453 and unsuccessfully besiege Vienna for the second time in 1683 (earlier in 1529). By the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Islamic Crusades receded, due to Western resistance. Since that time until the present, Islamic civilization has not advanced very far.
Two questions are posed and then answered at length.
Besides following Muhammad, why else did the Muslims launch their Crusades out of Arabia in the first place?
It is only natural to ask why Islam launched its own Crusades long before Christendom did.
In the complicated Muslim Crusades that lasted several centuries before the European Crusades, it is difficult to come up with a grand single theory as to what launched these Crusades. Because of this difficulty, we let three scholars and two eyewitness participants analyze the motives of the early Islamic Crusades.
1. World religious conquest
Muslim polemicists like Sayyid Qutb assert that Islam’s mission is to correct the injustices of the world. What he has in mind is that if Islam does not control a society, then injustice dominates it, ipso facto. But if Islam dominates it, then justice rules it (In the Shade of the Qur’an, vol. 7, pp. 8-15). Islam is expansionist and must conquer the whole world to express Allah’s perfect will on this planet, so Qutb and other Muslims believe.
2. “Unruly” energies in Arabia?
Karen Armstrong, a former nun and well-spoken, prolific author and apologist for Islam, comes up short of a satisfactory justification for the Muslim Crusades:
Once [Abu Bakr] crushed the rebellion [against Islamic rule within Arabia], Abu Bakr may well have decided to alleviate internal tensions by employing the unruly energies within the ummah [Muslim community] against external foes. Whatever the case, in 633 Muslim armies began a new series of campaigns in Persia, Syria and Iraq. (Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths, New York: Ballantine, 1997, p. 226).
Armstrong also notes that the “external foes” to Islam in Arabia in 633 are the Persians and the Byzantines, but they are too exhausted after years of fighting each other to pose a serious threat to Islam. Therefore, it moved into a “power vacuum,” unprovoked (Armstrong p. 227). She simply does not know with certainty why Muslims marched northward out of Arabia.
3. Religion, economy, and political control
Fred M. Donner, the dean of historians specializing in the early Islamic conquests, cites three large factors for the Islamic Crusades. First, the ideological message of Islam itself triggered the Muslim ruling elite simply to follow Muhammad and his conquests; Islam had a divinely ordained mission to conquer in the name of Allah. (The Early Islamic Conquests, Princeton UP, 1981, p. 270). The second factor is economic. The ruling elite “wanted to expand the political boundaries of the new state in order to secure even more fully than before the trans-Arab commerce they had plied for a century or more” (p. 270). The final factor is political control. The rulers wanted to maintain their top place in the new political hierarchy by having aggressive Arab tribes migrate into newly conquered territories (p. 271).
Thus, these reasons they have nothing to do with just wars of self-defense. Early Islam was merely being aggressive without sufficient provocation from the surrounding Byzantine and Persian Empires.
4. Sheer thrill of conquest and martyrdom
Khalid al-Walid (d. 642), a bloodthirsty but superior commander of the Muslim armies at the time, also answers the question as to why the Muslims stormed out of Arabia, in his terms of surrender set down to the governor of al-Hirah, a city along the Euphrates River in Iraq. He is sent to call people to Islam or pay a “protection” tax for the “privilege” of living under Islamic rule (read: not to be attacked again) as dhimmis or second-class citizens. Says Khalid:
“I call you to God and to Islam. If you respond to the call, you are Muslims: You obtain the benefits they enjoy and take up the responsibilities they bear. If you refuse, then [you must pay] the jizyah. If you refuse the jizyah, I will bring against you tribes of people who are more eager for death than you are for life. We will fight you until God decides between us and you.” (Tabari, The Challenge to the Empires, trans. Khalid Yahya Blankinship, NY: SUNYP, 1993, vol. 11, p. 4; Arabic page 2017)
Thus, according to Khalid, religion is early Islam’s primary motive (though not the only one) of conquering people.
In a short sermon, Abu Bakr says:
. . . Indeed, the reward in God’s book for jihad in God’s path is something for which a Muslim should love to be singled out, by which God saved [people] from humiliation, and through which He has bestowed nobility in this world and the next. (Tabari 11:80 / 2083-84)
Thus, the Caliph repeats the Quran’s trade of this life for the next, in an economic bargain and in the context of jihad (cf. Suras 4:74; 9:111 and 61:10-13). This offer of martyrdom, agreeing with Donner’s first factor, religious motivation, is enough to get young Muslims to sign up for and to launch their Crusades out of Arabia in the seventh century.
Khalid also says that if some do not convert or pay the tax, then they must fight an army that loves death as other people love life (see 634).
5. Improvement of life over that in Arabia
But improvement of life materially must be included in this not-so-holy call. When Khalid perceived that his Muslim Crusaders desired to return to Arabia, he pointed out how luscious the land of the Persians was:
“Do you not regard [your] food like a dusty gulch? By God, if struggle for God’s sake and calling [people] to God were not required of us, and there were no consideration except our livelihood, the wise opinion would [still] have been to strike this countryside until we possess it”. . . . (Tabari 11:20 / 2031)
Khalid was from Mecca. At the time of this “motivational” speech, the Empire of Persia included Iraq, and this is where Khalid is warring. Besides his religious goal of Islamizing its inhabitants by warfare, Khalid’s goal is to “possess” the land.
Like Pope Urban II in 1095 exhorting the Medieval Crusaders to war against the Muslim “infidels” for the first time, in response to Muslim aggression that had been going on for centuries, Abu Bakr gives his own speech in 634, exhorting Muslims to war against the “infidels,” though he is not as long-winded as the Pope.
Muslim polemicists believe that Islam spread militarily by a miracle from Allah. However, these five earth-bound reasons explain things more clearly.
Did the Islamic Crusades force conversions by the sword?
Historical facts demonstrate that most of the conquered cities and regions accepted the last of three options that were enforced by the later Muslim Crusaders: (1) fight and die, (2) convert and pay the zakat tax; (3) keep their Biblical faith and pay the jizya tax. Most preferred to remain in their own religion.
However, people eventually converted. After all, Islamic lands are called such for a reason—or many reasons. Why? Four Muslim polemicists whitewash the reasons people converted, so their scholarship is suspect.
1. The polemical answer
First, Malise Ruthven and Azim Nanji use the Quran to explain later historical facts:
“Islam expanded by conquest and conversion. Although it was sometimes said that the faith of Islam was spread by the sword, the two are not the same. The Koran states unequivocally, ‘There is no compulsion in religion’ (Sura 2:256).” (Historical Atlas of Islam, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard, 2004, 30).
According to them, the Quran says there should be no compulsion, so the historical facts conform to a sacred text. This shaky reasoning is analyzed, below.
Next, David Dakake also references Sura 2:256, and defines compulsion very narrowly. Jihad has been misrepresented as forcing Jews, Christians, and other peoples of the Middle East, Asia and Africa to convert to Islam “on pain of death.” (“The Myth of Militant Islam,” Islam, Fundamentalism, and the Betrayal of Tradition, ed. J.E.B. Lumbard, Bloomington: World Wisdom, 2004, p. 13). This is too narrow a definition of compulsion, as we shall see, below.
Finally, Qutb, also citing Sura 2:256, is even more categorical:
“Never in its history did Islam compel a single human being to change his faith” (In the Shade of the Qur’an, vol. 8, p. 307).
This is absurd on its face, and it only demonstrates the tendentiousness of Islamic scholarship, which must be challenged at every turn here in the West. For more information and thorough logic, see this article.
2. The historical facts
History does not always follow Scriptures because people do not. Did the vast majority of conquered peoples make such fine distinctions, even if a general amnesty were granted to People of the Book? Maybe a few diehards did, but the majority? Most people at this time did not know how to read or could barely read, so when they saw a Muslim army outside their gates, why would they not convert, even if they waited? To Ruthven’s and Nanji’s credit, they come up with other reasons to convert besides the sword, such as people’s fatigue with church squabbles, a few doctrinal similarities, simplicity of the conversion process, a desire to enter the ranks of the new ruling elite, and so on. But using the Quran to interpret later facts paints the history of Islam into a corner of an unrealistically high standard.
This misguided connection between Scripture and later historical facts does not hold together. Revelations or ideals should not run roughshod over later historical facts, as if all followers obey their Scriptures perfectly.
To his credit, Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), late Medieval statesman, jurist, historian, and scholar, has enough integrity and candor to balance out these four Muslim apologists, writing a history that is still admired by historians today. He states the obvious:
In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. (The Muqaddimah: an Introduction to History (abridged), trans. Franz Rosenthal, Princeton UP, 1967, p.183)
When the Islamic Crusaders go out to conquer, carrying an Islamic banner inscribed in Arabic of the glory and the truth of their prophet, Ibn Khaldun would not deny that the army’s mission, besides the material reasons of conquest, is to convert the inhabitants. Islam is a “universalizing” religion, and if its converts enter its fold either by persuasion or force, then that is the nature of Islam.
Moreover, Ibn Khaldun explains why a dynasty rarely establishes itself firmly in lands of many different tribes and groups. But it can be done after a long time and employing the following tactics, as seen in the Maghrib (N and NW Africa) from the beginning of Islam to Ibn Khaldun’s own time:
The first (Muslim) victory over them and the European Christians (in the Maghrib) was of no avail. They continued to rebel and apostatized time after time. The Muslims massacred many of them. After the Muslim religion had been established among them, they went on revolting and seceding, and they adopted dissident religious opinions many times. They remained disobedient and unmanageable . . . . Therefore, it has taken the Arabs a long time to establish their dynasty in the . . . Maghrib. (p. 131)
Conclusion
Though European Crusaders may have been sincere, they wandered off from the origins of Christianity when they slashed and burned and forced conversions. Jesus never used violence; neither did he call his disciples to use it. Given this historical fact, it is only natural that the New Testament would never endorse violence to spread the word of the true God. Textual reality matches historical reality in the time of Jesus.
In contrast, Muslims who slashed and burned and forced conversions did not wander off from the origins of Islam, but followed it closely. It is a plain and unpleasant historical fact that in the ten years that Muhammad lived in Medina (622-632), he either sent out or went out on seventy-four raids, expeditions, or full-scale wars, which range from small assassination hit squads to the Tabuk Crusade, described above (see 630). Sometimes the expeditions did not result in violence, but a Muslim army always lurked in the background. Muhammad could exact a terrible vengeance on an individual or tribe that double-crossed him. These ten years did not know long stretches of peace.
It is only natural that the Quran would be filled with references to jihad and qital, the latter word meaning only fighting, killing, warring, and slaughtering. Textual reality matches historical reality in the time of Muhammad. And after.
But this means that the Church had to fight back or be swallowed up by an aggressive religion over the centuries. Thus, the Church did not go out and conquer in a mindless, bloodthirsty, and irrational way—though the Christian Crusades were far from perfect.
Islam was the aggressor in its own Crusades, long before the Europeans responded with their own.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.