Tricks to convert you to Islam

Sacrificer           unknown
Sacrifice code       wfor0392
Sacrifice date       25 march 2009

Tricks to convert you to Islam

The Qur'an teaches for Muslims to enter into exile in lands where Islam is not the dominant force, and to stir up trouble, so that this persecution will come as the natives in those lands protect the integrity of their sovereignty.

"Those who believed, and adopted exile, and fought for the Faith, with their property and their persons, in the cause of Allah, as well as those who gave them asylum and aid,- these are all friends and protectors, one of another. Do this, protect each other, there would be tumult and oppression on earth, and great mischief." (Surah 8:72-73)

In this passage, "adopted exile" is translated from the root form hjr, which has as its primary meaning the ideas of containment or confinement, and can carry the connotation of being quarantined or compartmentalised. The idea garnered from this verse seems to be as follows: adopt exile in a foreign land, voluntarily confining yourself in a non-Muslim society. Eschew assimilating into the culture and way of life of the host country, and instead agitate for Islam. When opposition arises, join together and give aid and fight for Allah against the unbelievers, since voilà, persecution has arisen! Hence, what is touted as a defensive doctrine is in reality carried out in an offensive manner.

There are numerous other, more straight-forward quotes from the Qur'an which exhort the followers of Mohammed to war:

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war; but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and pay Zakat, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft- forgiving, Most Merciful." (Surah 9:5)

This passage is found in a portion of the Qur'an dealing with the making and breaking of treaties with pagans (unbelievers). In context, it is condoned for Muslims to break treaties with pagans if it is to their advantage to do so, UNLESS those pagans have been completely faithful in the discharge of their treaty obligations. But, after the terms of the treaty are met (the forbidden months are past), Muslims are commanded to make war. The historical context is that in ancient times, both in Arabia and elsewhere, treaties were most often made for specific periods of time. During that time period, both parties were expected to be completely faithful in the discharge of their obligations under the terms of the treaty. After the treaty term had ended, all bets were off. Groups which had been allies for a period of time might then turn on each other in the most vicious manner after the treaty time ended, without any loss of honour for either side. Hence, the Qur'an tells Muslims that pagan or unbelieving groups with whom they do not currently have a treaty are open to the prosecution of offensive war.

Likewise, in Surah 9:73, Mohammed is commanded to press hard war against unbelievers,

"O Prophet! strive hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed."

Also,

"O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him." (Surah 9:123)
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya (religion tax) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Surah 9:29)

Each of these verses, in context, is dealing with waging offensive war against unbelievers for the purpose of spreading Islam. As with the previous verses which we saw, Muslims will often try to claim that these verses promote defensive warfare only, and that offensive war to propagate Islam is not Quranical. They say this in the hopes that their audience, most likely non-Muslims, will not be conversant in the Qur'an, and hence will be unaware of the contextual environment in which these verses reside. A straight-forward reading of the appropriate surat and surrounding passages using a little common sense will contextually demonstrate the offensive nature of these verses to the unbiased reader.

However, many Muslim apologists still attempt to argue that these verses in the Qur'an are being taken out of context. Because of this claim, we should then investigate what orthodox Muslim expositors and scholars have to say on this, as their words were often much less inhibited by concerns for presenting Islam in a positive light to Western audiences. One of the earliest great Muslim legal scholars, Al-Tabari (839-923 AD), explained Surah 9:5 as commanding the death of infidels if they would not embrace Islam, lest they should enter Mecca 1. Al-Mahili (d. 1486 AD) also gives a clear indication of understanding Surah 9:5 offensively and aggressively,

"The chapter of Repentance was revealed to raise the level of security which the infidels enjoyed because Muhammad had earlier made a covenant with them not to kill them. After that, this verse was given (9:5) in order to free God and Muhammad from any covenant with the infidels. It gives them four months in which they will be protected, but by the end of the four months (the end of the grace period), the order comes: Kill the infidels wherever you find them. Capture them, besiege them in their castles and fortresses until they are forced to accept Islam or be killed."2

Another of the most historically influential of Muslim jurists and Quranic exegetes, al-Baydawi (d. 1276 AD), gives a fairly typical understanding of the doctrine, commenting on Surah 9:29,

"Fight Jews and Christians because they violated the origin of their faith and they do not believe in the religion of the truth (Islam), which abrogated all other religions. Fight them until they pay the poll-tax (Ziziya tax) with submission and humiliation."3

The Islamic philosopher and historian, Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406 AD), stated,
"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. Therefore, caliphate and royal authority are united in (Islam), so that the person in charge can devote the available strength to both of them at the same." 4

Other noteworthy Islamic jurists and philosophers promoted the same offensive strategy for jihad. Ibn Kathir (d. 1372) reiterated the famous quote attributed to Mohammed that "no two religions are to exist on the Arab peninsula", and asserted that Surah 9:5, seen above, abrogated any covenant which might have been made between Muslims and infidels5. Ibn Hazm (994-1064) provides some interesting commentary concerning that verse, Surah 2:256 ("Let there be no compulsion in religion...."), where he demonstrates the true purpose of the ayah,

"The prophet Muhammad did not accept from the Arab heathens less than Islam or the sword. This is compulsion of faith. No compulsion in faith (or religion) applies only to Christians or Jews because they are not to be forced to embrace the religion. They have the option either to embrace Islam, the sword, or to pay the poll-tax. In this case they can keep their own faith. It was truly said on the authority of the apostle of God that there is no compulsion in the faith." 6

Thus, compulsion certainly was to be applied to any non-Muslims who were not Christians or Jews. These latter two groups were given the third, apparently non-compulsive, choice of submitting to pay the jizyah poll-tax and live out their lives as a permanent underclass.

Modern Muslim scholars, historians, and exegetes have taken similar stances on jihad. Al-Buti reveals for us the following,

"The verse (9:5) does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that Holy War which is demanded in islamic law, is not defensive war (as the Western students of islam would like to tell us) because it could legitimately be an offensive war. That is the apex and most honorable of all Holy wars"7

He likewise states,

"You may wonder now: Where is the wisdom of forcing infidels and their associates to embrace islam? How could the mind set of the twentieth century understand such matters? The answer is: We wonder where the wisdom is when the state forces an individual to be subjugated to its system and philosophy despite the freedom he possesses? How can it be reasonable for the state to have the right to subjugate its citizens to the laws, principles, and ordinances it enacts, while the creator of all does not have the right to subjugate them to His authority and to convert them from every creed or faith to His religion?" 8

And in further refutation of the "defensive war" theory,

"This is the concept which professional experts of thought attempt to conceal from the eyes of muslims by claiming that anything that is related to a holy war in islamic law is only based on defensive warfare to repel an attack....It is no secret that the reason behind this deception is the great fear which dominates foreign countries (East and West alike) that the idea of Holy War for the cause of God would be revived in the hearts of muslims, then certainly, the collapse of European culture will be accomplished. The mind set of the European man has matured to embrace islam as soon as he hears an honest message presented. How much more will it be accepted if this message is followed by a Holy War?" 9

In exegeting Surah 9:29, which commands the laying of the jizyah onto the infidels, Khan states,

"Allah revealed in Sura Bara'at (Repentance, IX) the order to discard (all) obligations (covenants, etc), and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the Pagans as well as against the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizia (a tax levied on the Jews and Christians) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (as it is revealed in 9:29). So the Muslims were not permitted to abandon the fighting against them (Pagans, Jews and Christians) and to reconcile with them and to suspend hostilities against them for an unlimited period while they are strong and have the ability to fight against them. So at first the fighting was forbidden, then it was permitted, and after that it was made obligatory."10

Thus, the teaching is that Muslims are to fight when they have sufficient strength to win, and that this fight is obligatory. When Muslims are not strong enough to fight their enemies, they are likewise to lie low until such a time as they can fight, according to another prominent modern Muslim scholar. Quoting as-Suyuti, as-Saleh wrote,

"The command to fight the infidels was delayed until the Muslims become strong, but when they were weak they were commanded to endure and be patient."11
Saleh goes on to cite Zarkashi in a footnote saying,

"Allah the most high and wise revealed to Mohammad in his weak condition what suited the situation, because of his mercy to him and his followers. For if He gave them the command to fight while they were weak it would have been embarrassing and most difficult, but when the most high made Islam victorious He commanded him with what suited the situation, that is asking the people of the Book to become Muslims or to pay the levied tax, and the infidels to become Muslims or face death. These two options, to fight or to have peace return according to the strength or the weakness of the Muslims."12

Saudi scholar al-Amin likewise points to the Qur'an for the justification of offensive holy war,

"God had made it clear to us that (we should) call for acceptance of islam first, then wage war. It is not admissible to wage war before extending the invitation to embrace islam first, as the Qur'an says. 'We verily sent our messenger with clear proofs and revealed to them the scripture and the balance, that mankind may observe right measure, and he revealed iron, wherein is mighty power and uses for mankind and that Allah (God) may know him who helps Him and his messengers-Allah is strong, Almighty"' (Surah Iron 57:25)."13

This is especially informative for those who may remember that in the aftermath of the 11 September terrorist attacks, Saudi religious and political leaders, in the process of extending their condolences to President Bush, also extended an invitation to him to convert to Islam. Qutb, in a chapter entitled "Jihaad in the Cause of God", says this about those who believe that jihad is to be a defensive war only,

"They are ignorant of the nature of Islam and of its function, and that it has a right to take the initiative for human freedom. Thus wherever an Islamic community exists which is a concrete example of the Divinely-ordained system of life, it has a God-given right to step forward and take control of the political authority so that it may establish the Divine system on earth, while it leaves the matter of belief to individual conscience."14

Thus, while touting "freedom of individual conscience", Qutb seems to be espousing the right of the "Islamic community" to take control of political authority, which would seem to hearken back to what was seen earlier with Surah 8:72-73. Qutb, it should be noted, was executed by Egypt's Nasser government for attempting to overthrow the secular regime. Fattah adds,

"Islam has approved war so that the Word of God becomes supreme. This is war for the cause of God (Holy War). Muhammad, therefore, sent his ambassadors to eight kings and princes in the neighborhood of the Arab Peninsula to call them to embrace islam. They rejected his call. Thus, it became incumbent on the muslims to fight them." 15

Pakistani Islamic authorities stand with their brethren on this issue. Fazlur Rahman notes the abundant discussion of jihad in the Qur'an, and rejects the modern interpretation of jihad as defensive war only16. Maududi, likewise, rejects attempts to make a distinction between offensive and defensive jihad and views jihad as the means by which to overthrown all non-Islamic systems and replace them with submission to Allah17.

The above are only a very small sampling of what could be presented with regard to both the historic and modern orthodox Muslim positions on holy war. As can be seen, the justification is often drawn directly from those verses which were quoted above, and which are often said to be "defensive only" or "taken out of context" by Muslim apologists. Thus, it should certainly be seen that offensive war for the specific purpose of spreading the Islamic religion is very much a Quranic practice.

Violence From the Ahadith

The Qur'an is not the only source for this jihad doctrine, however. The ahadith also contain much regarding this sort of behaviour. Jihad is touted as the second best deed which could be performed in Islam, second only to believing in Allah and his prophet, Mohammed 18. To those who participate in jihad comes either the spoils of war if he lives or paradise if he is killed.

"The Prophet said, "The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr)." 19

Other portions of the ahadith also confirm the rights of jihadis to the spoils of those they kill in holy war 20 and their automatic entry into paradise if they die as martyrs in the cause of Allah 21,22. Participation in holy war earns Muslims many benefits and blessings from Allah, or so the writings teach. For instance, Mohammed said,

"He who reared a horse for the sole intention of using it in a Jehad, then he will be rewarded one virtue for each grain he gave the horse as a feed." 23

Right after this passage, it is then taught that a man who participates in jihad only for so long as it takes to milk a she-camel (I don't know much about camels, but this is probably not a very long time) still is entitled to paradise because of the blessedness of his endeavour 24. Then, in the next passage after that comes one which teaches that a man who dies in holy war has the right to intercede before Allah in paradise for the entry of seventy other men of his choosing, which Allah then is required to allow into paradise 25. It pays to have friends, apparently!

The importance of holy war in Islamic teaching takes precedence over other religious activities, as well. Mohammed taught that acting as a soldier of Allah for one night is better than 2,000 years of saying prayers back home26. While Islamic teachers in the West will play up the Muslim duty of zakat, the giving of alms to the poor, the ahadith teach that giving of your wealth to support jihad earns you even greater rewards. Mohammed stated,

"Whatever one spends to facilitate Jehad, Allah shall give him a reward which will exceed his contribution 700 times." 27

Perhaps the most decisive statement in all the ahadith which shows the driving force behind the expansion of Islam to be greed, and not any sort of "service" to a deity is this,

"He who murders another, property of the murdered becomes property of the murderer." 28

Want something that a non-believer has? Just get out your sword (or AK-47) and take it! Nevermind those laws of God like, "..thou shalt not kill....thou shalt no steal....thou shalt not covet..." (Exodus 20:13,15,17)

Hence, it ought to be seen and understood that the propensity of Islamic scriptural teaching is toward violence and the propagation of the Islamic religion by war and the enticement of booty and eternal, carnal paradise. Let us turn to the examination of Islam's practice, both historically and in a contemporary setting.

Islamic Attacks on Scholarism

Islamic behaviour towards those kafirs (unbelievers) who would not submit to Islam nor pay the religion tax has generally been very unpleasant. Islam has at various times sought to destroy any knowledge or learning that did not conform to Islam's way of thinking. While the destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria cannot be properly laid at the feet of Islam (actually, it was dealt the decisive blow, accidentally, by Julius Caesar's invading army six centuries earlier), this does not exonerate Islam from culpability with regards to the destruction of "infidel" knowledge. Muslim historiographer Ibn Khaldun (1332-1395 AD), mentions the destruction of the Persian state library that occurred with the capture of the capital, Ctesiphon, in 637 AD,

"Umar wrote [to the local Muslim commander who had requested permission to distribute these books to his troops as booty] : 'Throw them into the water. If what they contain is right guidance, God has given us better guidance. If it is error, God has protected us against it.'"29

Similar atrocities against scholarism were committed by Muslim invaders who destroyed the Sanskrit college of Vishaldev, Gujarat, India in 1196 AD, and by those who leveled the Buddhist university at Nalanda in 1200 AD, destroying much repository of learning at both sites.

Historical Muslim Violence Toward Unbelievers

As appalling as such activities may be, the toll in human life which Islam has wrought through history is infinitely greater. The aforementioned Caliph Umar I attained to the leadership of Islam in 634, two years after the death of Mohammed. In his short time as caliph, he led Islamic armies in the conquest of Syria (636 AD), Iraq (637 AD), Palestine and the Transjordan (638 AD), Egypt (642 AD), and Persia (642 AD). Umar was so brutal and despotic in his retaliation against the Persians (modern day Iranians) for opposing Islam's spread, that to this day Iranians will celebrate with great festivities the anniversary of his death.
The Muslim conquest of India was similarly brutal in its destruction of the indigenous civilisation and subjugation of the native Indians.

"From the time Muslims started arriving, around 632 AD, the history of India becomes a long, monotonous series of murders, massacres, spoliations, and destructions. It is, as usual, in the name of 'a holy war' of their faith, of their sole God, that the barbarians have destroyed civilizations, wiped out entire races.....Mahmoud Ghazni was an early example of Muslim ruthlessness, burning in 1018 the temples of Mathura, razing Kanauj to the ground and destroying the famous temple of Somnath, sacred to all Hindus. His successors were as ruthless as Ghazni: 103 temples in the holy city of Benaras were razed to the ground, its marvelous temples destroyed, its magnificent palaces wrecked." 30

India was repeatedly subjected to wave after wave after wave of Muslim invaders who would make a practice of killing or raping anyone in sight, and burning down anything they couldn't make off with in their packs. The Muslims of India and Pakistan (which is traditionally an Indian cultural area) are descendants of those Indians who converted to avoid the massacres and the religion tax imposed by their Muslim overlords.

***