Sharia: Coerced Conversion Binding?

ak_m_f wrote: runner wrote: Andalus wrote: ejdavid wrote: Sirs: Two Fox News reporters recently converted to Islam at gun point. Does Sharia law provide that these conversions are binding? No. It would be similar to cases where Christian missionaries target desperate people in desperate lands, and under the gun of starvation, will accept Christianity. Islam considers any conversion to a faith under the flag of duress as invalid. Do you know of any Christian missionaries who deny food to hungry people who will not convert?  Every group that I know of offers aid to whomever needs it regardless of whether they convert or not and would reject those who do that.This is an entirely different circumstance than offering aid to people who will not tolerate their presence, is it not? Remeber the missionaries had christmas when Tsunami struck. http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/jan/24shoba.htm follwoing article taken from yahoo.com Villagers furious with Christian Missionaries Samanthapettai, Jan 16 (ANI): Rage and fury has gripped this tsunami-hit tiny Hindu village in India's southern Tamil Nadu after a group of Christian missionaries allegedly refused them aid for not agreeing to follow their religion. Samanthapettai, near the temple town of Madurai, faced near devastation on the December 26 when massive tidal waves wiped it clean of homes and lives. Most of the 200 people here are homeless or displaced , battling to rebuild lives and locating lost family members besides facing risks of epidemic,disease and trauma. Jubilant at seeing the relief trucks loaded with food, clothes and the much-needed medicines the villagers, many of who have not had a square meal in days, were shocked when the nuns asked them to convert before distributing biscuits and water. Heated arguments broke out as the locals forcibly tried to stop the relief trucks from leaving. The missionaries, who rushed into their cars on seeing television reporters and the cameras refusing to comment on the incident and managed to leave the village. Disappointed and shocked into disbelief the hapless villagers still await aid. "Many NGOs (volunteer groups) are extending help to us but there in our village the NGO, which was till now helping us is now asking us to follow the Christian religion. We are staunch followers of Hindu religion and refused their request. And after that these people with their aid materials are leaving the village without distributing that to us," Rajni Kumar, a villager said. The incident is an exception to concerted charity in a catastrophe that has left no one untouched.(ANI) http://in.news.yahoo.com/050116/139/2j1rp.html

Assalam Aleikum Br.

Jazakallahu khair for your link.

This kind of incident occurs a lot more than most westerners think.

ejdavid wrote: Andalus: Once again I stipulate the obvious: "...bribing as many people as possible with whatever food is available for the task is different and supperior to threatening them with actual and immediate death."

WHo said anything about bribing? You "snuck" that term in. We are not talking about bribing. We are talking about researching and targeting a group of people who are in the most desperate postion in their lives and under the threat of death from starvation, using food as a means to convert.

There is nothing superior about it.

Islam, as a theology, teaches that any coerced conversion is wrong, and not legitmate. Incidents are extremely rare compared to the example I have presneted. The action of missionaries is widespread and a part of the theology.
Superior is word that I would not use when it comes to such an intellectually bankrupt method for finding converts.

Unlike the Muslim kidnappers, those missionaries did not threaten anyone with death.

They did. Accept our message and practice our faith or suffer from starvation and disease.

They simply offered to feed those who would convert. When they left with their food, they did not take any additional food with them.

Strawman. I never argued that they would take any additional food with them. Whether or not they took any additional food does not effect my thesis one way or the other.

According to your logic, an armed Muslim missionary could sequester all the local food and demand conversion, and it would be the same as the Christian situation you describe.

No, according to my logic, Christian missionaries look for desperate, deprived, and starving people to seek out converts from, which is just as bad as what uneducated individual Muslims did using weapons. The real difference is that in the Islamic faith, coercion by holding food from starving people or pointing a gun in order to convert is unlawful and unacceptable. While with the many missionary, evangelical groups, they use the Pauline letters to justify such acts as using starvation to convert.

The comparison is silly. You should be ashamed of yourself....

Your attempt at obfuscation is intellectually dishonest.  

ejdavid wrote: Andalus Perhaps a simple analogy will suffice. Lets stipulate 1)Christian missionaries with food and 2)"uneducated individual Muslims [with] weapons" enter similar villages with 500 inhabitants each. In both cases the offer of conversion is refused. In both cases, the two sets of missionaries carry out their stated policies. When the Christians leave there are still 500 inhabitants in the village. When the "uneducated individual Muslims" leave, the village is entirely depopulated. Does THAT make the diffence any easier to understand?

Your mastery of obfuscation is more readily observed. That has become clearer.

Both have used the fear of death to push their faiths. The real difference is that Islam prohibits this.  

Hope this helps.