| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
The continued emphasis by Muslim and non-Muslim apologists for Islam on a single verse -- "There is no compulsion in religion" -- is permitted not only because their Infidel audience has no idea either about what is said relevantly elsewhere, in hundreds of places, in the Qur'an and Hadith, and not only because they are unaware of the doctrine of abrogation or "naskh," but because they are also unaware of the precise meaning that is given to that phrase "there is no compulsion in religion" by Muslim jurisconsults. If they did look into it, they would find that the "obvious" meaning of the words -- that is, the meaning that we Infidels choose to endow that phrase with -- is not what Muslim scholars mean at all. They mean that in the end one cannot force deep belief on people, though one can force them to comply outwardly, even on pain of death. And that is what Islam is in the business of doing: forcing outward compliance, on pain of punishment that may well include, has often included, death.
But there is one more thing that should surely be offered as an objection when some fool comes along and utters credulously this "there is no compulsion in religion" and expects us to believe the Western understanding of it. That is the observable behavior of Muslims over 1350 years. What have Muslims done, when they have conquered, by force or otherwise, non-Muslim lands and peoples? They offer three possibilities: death, conversion, and, at least to those who can be classified as ahl al-kitab or "people of the book," permanent status as dhimmis, with a host of political, economic, and social disabilities which together added up to lives of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity, at times relieved -- but only at times -- by the occasional mollitude of a particular Muslim ruler. A slim reed on which to base one's happiness. And so, over time, many non-Muslims, in order to avoid this condition of degradation, humiliation, and physical insecurity, converted to Islam.
Why else did Hindus accept Islam? And the Muslims of Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India, of today, if they were quite honest with themselves, would recognize that they are the descendants of those who were essentially forced, or deemed it absolutely necessary, to convert -- and if they were to recognize this, they might convert back. Why did the ancestors of those we now call "Bosnians" (i.e., Muslims of the Balkans) convert to Islam under Ottoman rule, if not to escape the condition of the dhimmi (and such things as the devshirme, or forced levy of Christian children)? Why did North Africa, once Christian (both Tertullian and St. Augustine came from there) become islamized and then arabized? Why did the Christians and Jews of Iraq largely disappear, leaving only the remnant left today, which is also now leaving Iraq as they are newly threatened without the "secular" despot Saddam Hussein to protect them? (His "secularism" was a response to the need to disguise his Sunni despotism, and make it "open to all," including the inoffensive and innocuous Christians.)
Were they all driven out, or did many of them, over time, convert in order to avoid their condition as dhimmis? What happened to the Christians of Byzantium? Did they all leave, or did many of them become the ancestors of those who today are utterly convinced that they have been "Muslim" and "Turk" since time immemorial?
We all know the answer to these questions. And how many of us, if we had to endure the dhimmi status, and had each year, for example, to pay a jizyah tax of, say, $20,000, would remain non-Muslims? How many can say that their children or grandchildren would also remain willing to pay the tax rather than to become Muslims?
Of course there is "compulsion in religion" in the lands of Islam. The burdens placed on non-Muslims are simply too onerous to be ignored, and many, over the past 1350 years, when living under Muslim rule, have succumbed in order to avoid the dhimmi condition.
And that succumbing, that yielding, demonstrates perfectly the "compulsion in religion" that Islam demands, whatever naive and unschooled interpretation of 2.256 any Infidel idiot chooses to give it. Muslims know better.
Posted by Hugh at September 24, 2008 10:35 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
The problem is that for Muslims, words always mean totally different things than the same words do for non-Muslims. "Peace," for example, is identical to sharia, Islamic law and Islamic rule. The absence of sharia is the absence of peace.
According to the German-Syrian scholar Bassam Tibi, world peace “is reached only with the conversion or submission of all mankind to Islam. Muslims believe that expansion through war is not aggression but a fulfillment of the Qur’anic command to spread Islam as a way to peace. The resort to force to disseminate Islam is not war (harb), a word that is used only to describe the use of force by non-Muslims. Islamic wars are not hurub (the plural of harb) but rather futuhat, acts of ‘opening’ the world to Islam and expressing Islamic jihad. Relations between dar al-Islam, the home of peace, and dar al-harb, the world of unbelievers, nevertheless take place in a state of war....In other words, those who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them.”
Jihad is, simply put, anything undertaken to advance the spread of Islamic supremacy, peaceful or not. Which means that Jihad is always present, even if there should be a temporary absence of violence because Muslims are too weak to use force. Conversely, “aggression” is anything undertaken by non-Muslims to preserve their culture and resist the Islamization of their country, peaceful or not. Even if this is non-violent, such as publishing a cartoon critical of Islam, this intolerable insult to Islamic supremacy on earth can be answered with violence by Muslims. Since a refusal to submit to sharia is a rebellion against Allah, the very existence of self-governed non-Muslim communities can be viewed as an act of aggression.
Posted by: Fjordman![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 24, 2008 11:00 AM
Even when compared to other religions, islam is a violent, oppressive, bloody, power hungry at all costs to the people who do and don't convert, cult. Throughout islam's history it is one bloodbath after another. Fjordman and Hugh make excellent points. jihad is a violent movement of utter conquest to promote and ENSURE the spread of islamist supremecy. We know how that goes, convert, die or live in horrible conditions as a dhimmidog at the local trash dump.
Those of us in the west will always be at fault in islam's eyes as islam is the perfect
"religion" by those who blindy follow it. Those apologists, who love islam will make excuse after excuse to cast the blame inherent in the system of islam, on us. We are the canaries in the coal mines, the watchmen on the towers of Jersulaem!
at September 24, 2008 11:21 AM
There is 'no compulsion in religion', is a lot like the American 'voluntary' compliance with the tax system.
Everyone knows what happens when you stop 'volunteering' your money...
There is no compulsion to pay taxes, but there are numerous laws that say you better do it.
The reason for that in America is that you can't force a free man to give you money except at gun point. The gov knows this, that's why they call it a 'voluntary compliance system'.
But we know that is double talk...
Dhimmitude is 'voluntary' compliance with penalties for complying and not complying.
The dhimmi is informed as to who is in the superior position, and the brutalization starts from there.
The American tax system is identical.
When dealing with the IRS you are immediately informed who is in the superior position, the brutalization starts from there.
And just think...you 'volunteered for this abuse'.
There was no compulsion...
The solution to slow bleeding for dhimmi's is conversion to Islam, or get out of muslim controlled areas...The solution to slow bleeding from the tax system is to become so poor you are unaffected, become so rich you are unaffected, or get a job in government.
You will still pay taxes, but you wont have to work as hard...
at September 24, 2008 11:48 AM
So to continue this line of thought, unless counteractive measures are taken, and if present trends continue, we should expect to see the fall of the West to Islam within the next 100 years or so.
Probably with the formation of a new Caliphate.
So what is our best hope for defence?
- Campaigns like JW/DW; pushing into the mainstream.
- Books, articles which explain Jihad and dhimmitude, to spell out the deadly menace until it can be ignored no longer.
- Expressions of criticism aimed at the dangerous absurdities of Islamic theology. Regardless of attempts to stifle free speech.
Anti-jihad sentiment has to become endemic in Europe and America. But that alone won't be enough. Mainstream Islam has to be indicted as the source of the evil and there has to be a recognition of the need for abridgement of Quranic texts.
Non muslim elements of societies need to join together to face down the threat.
There. Nothing to it.
(Gulp!)
Posted by: StephenA55 at September 24, 2008 11:59 AM
"not only because they are unaware of the doctrine of abrogation or "naskh,"
Muslims seem to deny they do this when you mention it to them, but eems to me it doesn't matter: even if Muslims didn't apply abrogation, you have the fact that they take the Koran literally, so you have seemingly contradictory passages, "no compulsion" in one place, and "kill the infidels" in other places, and in order for the Muslims to avoid the contradiction all they have to do is twist the "kill the infidels" commands into self defense or some kind of divine right to extend theocracy over other lands, or a combination of the two. Also, seems that in the Muslim mind, when they have to live in a land that is not ruled by Islamic law, they feel they are being put upon, they feel we are inflicting "compulsion" on them--so the "no compulsion" passage could also be a backhanded way of saying there should be no system that makes it onerous NOT to practice Islam, and practicing Islam ideally for Muslims necessarily means living in circumstances where Islam dominates.
at September 24, 2008 12:02 PM
No compulsion in religion, except Islam I guess.
Posted by: Dumbo at September 24, 2008 12:16 PM
The horrible duality of Islam in practice. If a Muslim lies to kufars to advance Islam, they are viewed as a person of high moral standards in the ulemma. It is a sociopath's mentality, driven by a culture of death.
Posted by: tanstaafl at September 24, 2008 2:53 PM
How then, do Muslims who choose to push this idea of 'no compulsion in religion' explain away the countless people in Islamic countries who have been persecuted or killed when they convert away from Islam? How do they explain the fact that entire families often have to go into hiding to avoid jail or death? (And of course we only know of a small fraction of these. There are so many more whose voices we do not hear!)
How do Muslims explain all of this away? I'd love to hear it.
Posted by: Mo at September 24, 2008 7:28 PM
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/History/pre-wwOne/Bosnia-tyrannized.html
Posted by: LazarOfSerbia at September 24, 2008 9:32 PM
How do Muslims explain all of this away? I'd love to hear it.
Posted by: Mo [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 24, 2008 7:28 PM
They don't explain it, they deny it! Have you ever heard a muslim admit that islam was spread by the sword? Some of the rabid mullahs and imams brag about islam's brutal conquests but the average muslim learns and believes a revised, grossly inaccurate version of history. Even the qur'an distorts history, among other things. How could Biblical prophets be islamic when islam didn't exist in their time? How could Adam and Eve be muslims?! I couldn't count the contradictions in islam if I tried but they don't bother muslims; they just ignore them. Their brains are saturated from a lifetime of brainwashing and the rigors of islamic life leave little time for muslims to contemplate the blatant absurdities and incongruities of islam.
Muslims explain islam's rapid spread in very vague terms and often claim that countries like India were once entirely muslim and the Hindus stole their land, instead of the other way around! Some think that the Holy Land and other Middle Eastern areas have been islamic since the dawn of time and the muslims were nice enough to allow a few Jews and Christians to live there. Regardless of their explanations, they are always completely erroneous and never acknowledge the genocidal, conquering muslim armies that butchered millions of people. They do not believe the Jews were in Palestine centuries before islam's existence. There is an islamic version of history and real history.
at September 24, 2008 10:40 PM
And yes what of all those Christians ... Spanish Inqusition-ised Jews and Muslims , the South American Indians , the North American Indians , the Africans ... Are we to condemn a religion because of coercion or hypocrisy then perhaps should we condemn all religions.
Posted by: David Xavier at September 25, 2008 6:03 AM
A poster just above wishes to insist, at this point in history, that "all religions are the same" or, in a variant, "they all do it." To this obvious and tiresome bit of Tu-Quoque one can reply with the obvious.
Do all religions right now, or during the past hundred or two hundred years, use "compulsion" to spread their religion? Or has the practice stopped in other religions, but continues forever in Islam, as the dhimmi system in Islam-dominated lands is clearly a powerful means of such compulsion?
Did those who were intent on spreading beliefs than Islam, do it in the past, but not do it now? In any case, you are really talking only about Christianity. Hindus and Jews do not proselytize, thougn they accept converts; their religions are largely connected to a particular land and people -- those of India (Bharat) or who came from India,, and the Land of Israel. Buddhists proselytize, but without any use of compulsion.
Christianity and Islam are the two religions that make universalist claims. And there have been times and places where Christian missionaries worked alongside conquerors from Christian lands. Think of those who spread Christianity, often through force, alongside the conquistadores. But they had their internal opposition. Not only the "doctors of Salamanca" (as Samuel Johnson referred to them), Vitoria and Suarez, but also Bartolome de las Casas, who deplored such means. We now know that the Leyenda Negra has been exaggerated, but there was, is, a core of truth to it. And no doubt missionaries in Africa, who attended upon the Europeans who took possession of large swaths of territory, benefitted from that power, but did they use "compulsion" or other means to spread Christianity?
The argument is that the dhimmi system itself, held up by Muslims as an example of their "tolerance" -- meaning that Muslims allowed and allow Christians and Jews to continue to exist in Muslim-ruled lands (and which, presumably, is being compared to
Western Christendom, where non-Christians, that is Jews, from the medieval period onwere subject to various kinds of humiliation, persecution, and intermittent massacre. While true, it was not true systematically or programmatically and is not true today (today Western antisemitism, a force that does not die but merely changes carriers, is mostly cultivated in leftist, philo-Muslim circles).
at September 25, 2008 6:27 AM
There is no doctrine of of abrogation in Islam. Only afew idear of the Mecca peroid where ended when new laws from the Medine peroid where reveal like the banning of drinking aholic drinks. In the America there amentend pass that abrogate parts of the continunent of the united state.
Posted by: DefenderofIslam at September 27, 2008 3:39 AM
"(When Abu Sufyan of Mecca is brought to Muhammad he is told to confess) "there is no God but the only God" and "I (Muhammad) am his Apostle." Abu Sufyan answered 'by God O Muhammad, of this there is doubt in my soul."
"Woe to you! Accept Islam and testify that Muhammad is the Apostle of God before your neck is cut off by the sword." (Thus he professed the faith of Islam and became a Muslim.)
Dr. al-Buti in "The Jurisprudence of Muhammad's Biography" repeats this from the Sunnah, and he thinks some might object to faith being imposed by the threat of beheading!: "What is required of an infidel or one who confuses other gods with God, is to have his tongue surrender to the religion of God and subdue himself to the prophethood of Muhammad. But his heartfelt faith is not required at the beginning. It will come later."
So here is the parsing of forced conversion as
pertaining to forcing a heart to believe only,
not forcing a tongue to confess!
"Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah...invite them to accept Islam...if they refuse to accept Islam, demand for them the jizya..if they refuse to pay the tax seek Allah's help and fight them" (Sahih Muslim 4294). This is the offer Islam gives to unbelievers. Abu Bakr invading Persia said "Embrace Islam or pay the poll tax or fight." Caliph Umar invading Iraq said "Summon the people to God, those who refuse must pay the poll tax out of humiliation & lowliness, if they refuse this it is the sword without leniency."
This is how Islam advanced. Compulsion by any other name would smell as sweet.
"DefenderofIslam"--it suffices to only present the following concerning only the Verse of the Sword 9:5: Ibn Kathir:"this honorable ayat (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword...it abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty and every term. These ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations..." You see the word abrogated? It means cancelled.
9:5 Ibn Juzayy: abrogating EVERY peace treaty in the Qur'an. as-Suyuti 9:5 abrogates pardon, truce and overlooking (seize them) is used as evidence for the permission to take captives (besiege them) permission for raiding and attacking by night...everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness is abrogated by verse 9:5" Jalaluddin Suyuti 1497 AD Itqar fi 'ulum-il-Quran; Al-Shawkani "Islam is unanimous about fighting the unbelievers and forcing them to Islam, submitting and paying Jizya tax or being killed. The verses about forgiving them are abrogated..by the obligation of fighting." Awaiting your wise council.
at September 27, 2008 11:38 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)