Epsilon wrote: I am therefore made uneasy by all the vilification that the Quran heaps on unbelievers. I have many other misgivings about what the Quran prescribes, but the question of most concern to me is whether it is at all possible that Islam can co-exist with unbelievers, and acknowledge their right to unbelief. We are not a religion that threatens anyone on behalf of any god, we only want peace and to be allowed to live by the golden rule that predates all religions.

It was reported that the Ansar were the reason behind revealing this Ayah, although its indication is general in meaning. Ibn Jarir recorded that Ibn `Abbas said [that before Islam], "When (an Ansar) woman would not bear children who would live, she would vow that if she gives birth to a child who remains alive, she would raise him as a Jew. When Banu An-Nadir (the Jewish tribe) were evacuated [from Al-Madinah], some of the children of the Ansar were being raised among them, and the Ansar said, `We will not abandon our children.' Allah revealed, There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the right path has become distinct from the wrong path.'' Abu Dawud and An-Nasa'i also recorded this Hadith.

First, this is an authentic Hadith, with only three narrators between Imam Ahmad and the Prophet . However, it is not relevant to the subject under discussion, for the Prophet did not force that man to become Muslim. The Prophet merely invited this man to become Muslim, and he replied that he does not find himself eager to become Muslim. The Prophet said to the man that even though he dislikes embracing Islam, he should still embrace it, `for Allah will grant you sincerity and true intent.'

@ honeto/Hasan

after reading you and your silly arguments it is obvious that you don;t have any serious intention to learn rather force your opinion upon others, and get upset when they don't believe you. That's pittyful and a shame, but you choose what you do, you are going to reap it. (No logical bearing on this discussion.)

There is a term in geology that says " present is the key to the past" (We're not talking about rocks.)

You don't need to know what happened in the past if all you are going to do is to deny it. So like a geologist, we will apply this and see what has been going on in our times in terms of spreading of Islam. You and I live in today's world, so you can believe as an eye witness that what is going on is true. (I also see an incredibly high number of violent acts being perpetrated by Islamists. Should I just show them a blind eye?)

Despite a global effort to control the spread of Islam (in our eye witnessed history), Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. (There has not been a global effort to control the spread of Islam. There was a global effort for quite some time to control the spread of communism...but Islam? No.) This fact use to circulate around the globe just ten years ago very openly after the publishing of the century report by the Catholic church. This report showed Islam as the fastest growing religion by a big margin, in double digit percentage numbers in 20th century. (Do you think ex-Muslims in Saudi Arabia or Iran report their conversion to other faiths or atheism?)

Unlike Christian conversions of low cast Hindus and of the poor and the orphens in India, poor and orphens of Africa and other poor countries which still turned out to be only in fractions, the coversions to Islam was not by exploiting the disadvantaged or the poor, but by people from all walks of life and mostly in the Western hamisphere where people have more, http://www.islamicity.com/forum/l - education , wealth and freedom. (Exactly my point. You can't truly practice Islamic law in the West, so the religious aspect of Islam appeals to people...whereas most Westerners are downright ignorant about shariah law and are probably quite uninformed regarding the more detailed writings of the Hadith and Tafsirs.)

No swords, no armies, no forcing, no compulsion and no proof of such fake cries and lies, just plain truth. (Uh huh. Just ignore all those persecution reports.) And like I said that is despite the full scale efforts to oppose this spread through all hidden and open methods by those who are going to end up as loosers one day anyway, as they not only deny the truth of submission to their Creator, but on top mislead others. And as expected, their punishment will pile up to be rightly most severe for what they do. (Typical Islamic propoganda.)

May God guide you to the right and the truth, seek His guidence in this month of blessings. Seek His forgiveness and mercy by speaking and spreading only the truth. (You really think God isn't guiding me? Or perhaps it is your Allah who misguides me. Did you ever consider that?)

Natassia wrote: Epsilon wrote: I am therefore made uneasy by all the vilification that the Quran heaps on unbelievers. I have many other misgivings about what the Quran prescribes, but the question of most concern to me is whether it is at all possible that Islam can co-exist with unbelievers, and acknowledge their right to unbelief. We are not a religion that threatens anyone on behalf of any god, we only want peace and to be allowed to live by the golden rule that predates all religions.   I am made uneasy by these verses as well:   8:22   8:55   9:5   9:28-30   98:6   I always wondered how Muslims reconciled the verse about no compulsion in religion with the verses that speak about fighting people until they become Muslims as well as reconciling them with the Hadiths that describe forced conversion.  That's why I decided to research the context of the "no compulsion" verse as well as the concept of abrogation.   From the Tafsir Ibn Kathir (found at http://www.tafsir.com/ - ):   [2:256] There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the right path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower.   Allah said, There is no compulsion in religion, meaning, "Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty. Whoever Allah blinds his heart and seals his hearing and sight, then he will not benefit from being forced to embrace Islam.'' It was reported that the Ansar were the reason behind revealing this Ayah, although its indication is general in meaning. Ibn Jarir recorded that Ibn `Abbas said [that before Islam], "When (an Ansar) woman would not bear children who would live, she would vow that if she gives birth to a child who remains alive, she would raise him as a Jew. When Banu An-Nadir (the Jewish tribe) were evacuated [from Al-Madinah], some of the children of the Ansar were being raised among them, and the Ansar said, `We will not abandon our children.' Allah revealed, There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the right path has become distinct from the wrong path.'' Abu Dawud and An-Nasa'i also recorded this Hadith. As for the Hadith that Imam Ahmad recorded, in which Anas said that the Messenger of Allah said to a man,"Embrace Islam.'' The man said, "I dislike it.'' The Prophet said, "Even if you dislike it.'' First, this is an authentic Hadith, with only three narrators between Imam Ahmad and the Prophet . However, it is not relevant to the subject under discussion, for the Prophet did not force that man to become Muslim. The Prophet merely invited this man to become Muslim, and he replied that he does not find himself eager to become Muslim. The Prophet said to the man that even though he dislikes embracing Islam, he should still embrace it, `for Allah will grant you sincerity and true intent.' From the Tafsir Ibn Kathir (found at http://www.tafsir.com/ - ):   [2:106] Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh (We abrogate) or Nunsiha (cause to be forgotten), We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is Able to do all things   To read about the meaning of nanskh: http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=2&tid=2938 -   Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 33: It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they  prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah. See these additional hadith:   Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Number 4294 Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Number 4366 Sahih Muslim, Book 31, Number 5917 Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387 Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24 Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 643   Also, read the story about Abu Sufyan's forced conversion in Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasoul Allah.

Once more your cursory attempt at scholarship only reveals just how ignorant you are. One key bit of evidence that tells me you are simply out of your league is the incoherent nature of your contribution. It really does not make a solid point, except your opposition to Islam, and you vaguely mash in some quotes and then �handwave� as a means to show everyone how truthful your belief is. Lets try and make sense of this convoluted mishap.

Nansakh and Nunsiha

You cranked out a very interesting topic. Our scholars actually study at the feet of a scholar for decades to fully understand this subject and to be able to apply it to matters of religion and theological discussion. So you start with 2:256, appeal to the concept of Nanskh and Nunsiha, claim a study of it, and then, �shazam� (handwaving), you paste some hadith, and make an unclear conclusion implying that your opposition to Islam is justified.

Since you claim you have reseacrhed this, could you please show us how 2:256 was applied to a legal ruling governing forced conversions and show us how Nansakh was applied? You must know something I do not. I only ask this because if you are to make such bold claims with my religious texts, then I expect you to back up your claims. If not, then leave the scholarly material of my faith to scholars.

Now, your major misunderstanding comes from your inability to separate jihad and qital, from compulsion in faith. The two are not the same. If they were, your faith would have been wiped out from the middle east long ago. You cannot be a Muslim unless you believe with your heart. Outward actions do not make you a Muslim, and this idea is why there should not be any compulsion in Islam. Only you can choose to follow God on the right path. So any verse about fighting does not conflict with the no compulsion verse. And nansakh/nunsiha does not play a role in this instance.

It was reported that the Ansar were the reason behind revealing this Ayah, although its indication is general in meaning. Ibn Jarir recorded that Ibn `Abbas said [that before Islam], "When (an Ansar) woman would not bear children who would live, she would vow that if she gives birth to a child who remains alive, she would raise him as a Jew. When Banu An-Nadir (the Jewish tribe) were evacuated [from Al-Madinah], some of the children of the Ansar were being raised among them, and the Ansar said, `We will not abandon our children.' Allah revealed, There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the right path has become distinct from the wrong path.'' Abu Dawud and An-Nasa'i also recorded this Hadith. As for the Hadith that Imam Ahmad recorded, in which Anas said that the Messenger of Allah said to a man,"Embrace Islam.'' The man said, "I dislike it.'' The Prophet said, "Even if you dislike it.'' First, this is an authentic Hadith, with only three narrators between Imam Ahmad and the Prophet . However, it is not relevant to the subject under discussion, for the Prophet did not force that man to become Muslim. The Prophet merely invited this man to become Muslim, and he replied that he does not find himself eager to become Muslim. The Prophet said to the man that even though he dislikes embracing Islam, he should still embrace it, `for Allah will grant you sincerity and true intent.'

So we have two examples where no one was forced to convert. At this point you loosely invoke �abrogation� as if this has now changed. 

Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 33: It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they  prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.

There is no coercion in this hadith. Jihad is not coercion. Understanding the hadith implies you understand the rules of warfare in Islam, and the understanding that there is no compulsion.

Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Number 4294

It is a story that took place in the early days of Islam and deals with raids. There is no coercion rulings.

Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Number 4366

Has to do with making the sacred land for Muslims only, there is no ruling on coercion.

Sahih Muslim, Book 31, Number 5917 Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387 Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24 Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 643

I am bored, and have stopped looking at your evidences. If you want to find some real dirt, take a look at Jesus in your OT�He LOVED to kill people�did not even find out if they were going to convert, or pay a special tax. Nope, he flat out had people killed�babies, women, did not matter. So when did Jesus change His mind about children and why? 

Really?

I could have sworn that I proved that compulsion does happen in Islam. It happened under Muhammad's leadership, and it continues to happen today. I also proved that there really wasn't any religious tolerance under Muhammad's leadership. The only religions tolerated were those of the people of the Book, and only then after they had been forced into submission.

I'm simply showing how abrogation can be applied. Now, think about this...if 2:256 was not abrogated, then all of those other Quran verses telling Muslims to fight people until they convert or submit, and all those Hadith describing Muhammad and his followers as forcing conversions and submissions prove them to be hypocrites.

OR if it wasn't really abrogated, then 2:256 isn't really about not forcing people to believe in Islam but is strictly related to its historical context with the women and their infants. (Which means Muslims should stop quoting it in their attempt to prove that there is no compulsion in Islam.)

2:256 was abrogated by later verses telling Muslims to force conversions

2:256 was not abrogated by later verses but it even applies to not forcing people into Islam, therefore we have quite a confusing and hypocritical mess, don't we?

2:256 was not abrogated because it only referred to that particular situation with the women and their children and really only applies to inner compulsion...not compulsion of non-Muslims.

I'm trying hard not to scoff at this. It seems to me that jihad in the Quran is primarily about PHYSICAL fighting (especially if we keep things in their historical context). And qital...it looks like that is also evidenced in the Quran.

Once the Holy Prophet was constrained to say: "I intend to tell the Muazzin (person who calls the Azaan) to call out the takbir and ask someone to lead the prayer and I myself set the house of that person on fire who did not attended the congregational prayer." (Bukhari & Muslim) http://www.inter-islam.org/Actions/Congregation.html

Are you trying to say that fighting people until they are forced to convert to Islam is not compulsion?

So, fighting people until only Islam remains is not compulsion? What is that then?

What happened to just remaining where you are in peace, living by the fruit of your hands, and practicing your religion where you live? Why did Muhammad have to fight people throughout the entire Arabian peninsula? Why did the Muslims have to try and spread Islam by the sword outside of the Arabian peninsula?

I'm laughing. Seriously. So, those raids...besieging forts...Muslims aren't allowed to do that anymore? Only Muhammad and his close companions were allowed to attack and loot?

Why are Muslims allowed to do this but the Christians and Jews are not? And in the process of making this land sacred....did that involve forcing conversion? I think it did (as is evidenced by the stories in the Hadith.)

Ad hominem tu quoque. (And you provided no evidence anyway.)

Natassia wrote: @ Chrysalis   Why is Islam spreading quickly? 1. Muslims consider their children to be Muslims. So, as Muslim families grow, so do the statistics

Uhhh, ok.

Yes, birth-rate is one of the reasons why Islam is growing globally. The other reason is conversions to Islam. Islam is not only growing, it is spreading . . . refer to CNN article (just one e.g of a source)

And mind you, Muslims did not spread in the world based on birth rates alone. . . masses converting to Islam has a lot to with its spread. Which is why the growing Muslim population is not restricted to a particular race, ethnicty or nation - rather, there is a diverse mixture of races and ethnicities involved - which logically denotes conversions, not just birthrates.

2. People desire to belong to a group...and individualistic cultures leave many people feeling a bit bereft. (The Islamic Ummah opens its arms to all races and cultures--as long as you conform to the Islamic culture after conversion.)

3. In the West, people are not subjected to Islamic law. So, people are free to practice their religion as they see fit. If new converts to Islam do not want to follow Islam the way the earliest Muslims did, they don't have to.

So?

How and what point does this prove?

Btw, even in muslim majority countries that try to implement some semblance of islamic law, muslims are not forced to practise Islam. Its a given, its something that you either do, or you dont. Save perhaps 2 countries I can think of at the moment, the average muslim is not forced or pressured into practising Islam. If we do, it is because we feel the need to or want to - not because some external force is pressuring us!

By the way, it is illogical to try and prove that Islam is peaceful and the truth because it is the fastest growing religion. You are trying to make an argument based on the logical fallacy known as Appeal to Popularity.

Dont tell me you're one of those people who are either philosophy students or have taken a course or two, and join such forums for some pseudeo-intellectual adrenaline rush.... We get a lot of those here. . .

The point is - Islam is the fastest growing religion today, if it did not provide the masses with some sort of benefit or spiritual allure, it would not be the fastest spreading religion today. I brought in this fact in response to your 'forced conversion' theory . . . if 'forced conversions' are part and parcel of Islam/Muslims - then who is forcing these current accelerating conversions today? How many forced conversions are going in the USA? the UK?

Had Islam really  been the way you and the likes of you percieve it to be - it would have withered down and become defunct long ago, like the many other religions today.

As for your 'Appeal to Popularity' . . . I agree, just because the masses believe in something, does not make it auomatically correct. And Muslims really dont need this concept to prove anything about Islam anyway.

Besides, I dont think this concept even applies here. . . the global majority as a whole today does not believe Islam to be correct, nor peaceful, nor the truth. If anything, Muslims today are bieng cornered by the media and those in authority . . . so Islam is not exactly very popular today - globally. Even if we wanted to, we couldnt use appeal to popularity.

Infact, if you are supporting Islam, or practising it - you're going against the tide - not mingling with a popular/universal opinion at all.

The thing is, only the religious aspect of Islam may be growing but its political and military aspects are not keeping up with it.

Agreed.  So ?

An unfortunate reality yes, the Ummah has some aspects it needs to work on and fix. . . . but what exactly are you trying to prove?

That is because non-Muslims are in positions of authority in the West. Islam is more than just a religion. It is a way of life that incorporates a rule of law for everything: economics, marriage, clothing, diet, entertainment, military, crime & punishment, etc. So, really...Islam is not the fastest growing considering it is not being fully implemented.

Agree with the part in bold. Again, one of the all-encompassing, holistic aspects of Islam that appeal to people.

As for your last sentece: ???? I will have to agree with Hassan here, some of your "arguments" are plain silly and make no sense. How do you know at all  whether or not the aspects you mentioned are bieng implemented at all? Brings us back to the 'ignorance' all over again.

Contrary to what you believe, almost all of the above aspects of Islam are widely practised - almost on a day-to-day basis by Muslims all over the world.   This is what makes Islam different from the other defunct, expired religions: it is not something restricted to a church/temple/annual occasions/ or a book. The only other religious followers today (that i can think of) who try to follow some semblance of thier religion are orthodox Jews and hindus.

A majority of muslims today pratcise Islam habitually. As a part of thier daily routine! Whether it is prayers, fasting, diet, clothing, economics: zakat, sadaqah, marriage, ablutions/hygine, etc! The only aspect where we lack may be polictial or military - and that too because we are currently not in a global position of authority!

I brought up Pakistan to show how Muslims will use their religion as an excuse to break away from authority and separate themselves forcing Hindus and Sikhs to either convert or leave. Tens of thousands of people died because of it.

Looks like I shall have to explain subcontinental history anyway.

First of all, Muslims did not use any 'excuses' to 'break away from authority' ! They had valid reasons!!! Simple example, Muslims in India today cannot even eat beef or slaughter a cow in peace! Talk about a 'secular' state!

Btw, which authority are you talking about anyway? The illegal British one? We challenged that authority together with the nonmuslims of India. . .it was a mutual struggle. There was no 'legitimate' authority in India.

And who said Hindus and Sikhs were either forced to convert or leave? Sindh has the largest Hindu population in Pakistan, they wished to stay, they stayed. Punjab still is home to many Sikhs to wished to stay on thier land! Indian Sikhs visit Lahore annually for thier annual religous festival at the Golden Temple in Lahore!!! They were not forced to leave or converted!

Migration was a choice for the people. If either party wished to stay in either territory, they were allowed to!

Tens of thousands of people were killed by the British in the war for independence.  . .muslims/nonmuslims alike! Things like that happen when you are trying to break free from illegetimate rule.

The Portuguese, British, etc. had no right to do what they did. Are you telling me that the followers of the perfect truth were simply doing what everyone else did? They lowered themselves to the level of the kufaar?

Under Islam - There is no harm in following a norm of the day/age - as long as it does not go against the basic principles of Islam. In every time and age trends differ. If it is morally wrong, and goes against Islam - then you have to say No and stand up.

The interesting thing to note however is - if the Portugeuse and the Brits were also responsible for the same thing, how come you have a particular bone to pick with Muslims? We were simply trying to survive in a time and age where might was right . . . It was an unfortunate reality of the time - either you were in authority, or you were victimised/suppressed/attacked. Naturally Muslims preferred the former. And what a blessing for the non-Christian minorities of the time that Muslims chose to fight for authority! or they would have had to live under suppressive, middleaged Christian rule. Thanks to the Muslim empire - global civilisation gained a lot. So look on the bright side... In our defense, we stopped attacking countries loooong ago. . . It would be nice if your side stopped too.

Like I said, it is not always about forced conversion. In reality, it is more about forced submission.

Yeah, somewhere down the line your stance switched from 'forced conversions' to 'forced submission'. Donno whatchu mean.

Forced conversion is convenient in the beginning when trying to increase income and troops and earn yourself a ruthless reputation (which is what happened in the Arabian peninsula in the 7th century AD.)

I dont know why its in your head that the initial Muslims were forcibly converted! You cannot build a ruthless, loyal, cohesive unit of an army that consists of 'forcibly' converted, victimised people. In order to have the metal, drive and motivation to fight for a cause - you have to believe in it! You are talking about a time when wars were won based on individual efforts of the soldiers, they didnt have guns and tanks. . . . so unless the Muslim Army was fiercly loyal to thier cause and commanders, they couldnt have achieved what they did. They fought for thier cause willingly.

Whenever a people were forced by thier government to fight a war or a cause - they have failed. See Vietnam War, Iraq war . . . etc.

You can't force large groups of people (ie nations) to submit to you if you do not have a large enough number of followers to begin with. However, once you have a vast enough army, then forced conversions are no longer necessary (and they are also quite impractical.)

I dont even know what you are trying to prove anymore. I can see that now your emphasis is on 'forced submission' rather than your initial claim of forced conversions. . . Duh, during Wars - you force your opponent to submit! Isnt that what Christian Armies did? What USA did? Isnt that what any army does? during times of war?

The question that arises is - where/how did that initial 'large enough number of followers' begin with in the first place? Like I explained before - forced conversions may provide you with statistics, or a 'quantity' or even a 'label' . . . they do not however provide you with a functioning, loyal, cohesive public - that constitutes the army - or fiercly backs thier community/leaders . . . .had that initial number of people been a suppressed, victimised lot - I doubt we would even be having this discussion. . . there would have been no Muslim Empire. The Muslims would have lost the first war they fought.

The point of the matter is that forced conversion has occurred at the hands of Muslims since the time of Muhammad, and it continues to happen today.

Just repeating that to yourself, or on this forum does not make it true - unfortunately for you. Pl re-read the previous posts by me and other members on this subject.

Force conversion works one of two ways: 1. Person points weapon at your head or throat and says, "convert or I will kill you." 2. Person makes your life a living hell because you are not a follower of their religion...causing you to choose between four options (not all of which are available depending on the circumstances): moving away, fighting back, continuing to suffer, or converting to their religion.

Option # 1 - Moving Away: That is exactly what the Jews living under Christian rule did. They moved away - and migrated to Muslim controlled areas under the Ottoman Empire. I do not see examples of nonmuslims moving away from Muslim controlled areas, fleeing to other territories. In anycase - nonmuslims were free to move about, enter or leave Muslim territories. They were in no way pressurised nor was thier life made a living hell. Au contraire, the Jews enjoyed a golden peak period during the Ottoman Empire - where they were actually allowed to function as contributing members of the society, holding government offices even. Which is why they chose to move away from christian territories.

Option # 2 - Fighting Back: Again, the nonmuslims who feared persecution had the opportunity to ally themselves with the main Muslim opponent at the time, i.e. Christian Army  and fight back . They chose to ally themselves with the Muslims instead.

Option # 3& 4 - Continuing to suffer/ converting: Nonmuslims under Ottoman rule - had to go through niether. Because :

a) they actually were not sufferring, rather were enjoying the maximum possible security/freedom they could have ever hoped to achieve at that time, under any government of the day. On the contrary, they were flourishing.

b) they did not feel compelled to convert on a whole - WHICH IS WHY nonmuslim areas under Ottoman rule maintained thier status quo - and remained nonmuslim. For more details, refer to my very first post on the subject, which gives you living examples of how nonmuslims retained thier identity and religion despite centuries under Muslim rule.

So are you saying that survival is all that matters...nevermind truly living as a free human being?

No, you're saying that..not me.

I was simply correcting your misconception that Muslims have been forcibly converting nonmuslims living under thier rule. E.g Coptic Christians.

They don't have to be forcibly converted because they are outnumbered and are easily forced to submit. Forced conversion only happens when the Islamic State is threatened.

??????

Indonesia is not an Islamic State because no army ever forced it to be one. It wasn't until the 13th century that Muslim merchants began spreading Islam there. The Hindu kings converted to Islam. Once the monarchies (which had control over their respective nations) were Muslim, then their countries followed suit.

Yeah, hence an example of how muslims have not been forcibly converting people.

Chrysalis : Had Muslims been 'forcibly converting' the oh-so-poor victimised nonmuslims all along - Half the world today would be Muslim, and Islam would not be the fastest growing religion today... Natassia: It was more about forcing submission...which is what would have happened throughout Europe if armies like those of the Franks hadn't stopped them. Forced conversion is not necessary if non-Muslims are in a state of submission and the Islamic State is not under any threat.

Uhhh, oK. Back to forced 'submissions' . . . .

Forget about the Franks 'stopping' us. . .  even While Muslims were ruling - they did not do so.

As for you latter comment . . . That is simply ridiculous! The only time when you can 'force' someone into converting is when you have the upper hand!!!

How can you forcibly convert someone, if you yourself are under threat and no longer in a secure position???? That logic simply doesnt make any sense.

-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."