Conversion by the sword?

[wolf]

I have started this thread to discuss if during the Holy Prophets Life there were any specific mass conversions ny the sword. I am assuming this means accept or die approach unless someone furnishes a more appropriate meaning.

The Holy Prophet PBUH is commonly said to have two phases to his life and although this is logical (Meccan and Medinite) I would split it into three;the first being the time up to his migration to Medina, and the second the time from his migration to the truce of Hudaybiyah, which was also a period of persecution; the third from the truce to the surrender of Mecca.

The first thirtenn years encompass the fiirst phase, no issue of conversion by the sword as Muslims were being heavily persecuted by the Meccans. Historically there were no conversions by the sword.

During the second period Muslims did offer Resistance with arms but only to defend themselves against attacks and annihilation. During this period there are again no record of any coversions by the sword as such. Many people Meccans included were still joining Islam as were many from Medina and some Jews. The Prophet PBUH and his followers undertook many expeditions (Ghazwah - not accompanied by the Prophet PBUH Sariiyah if accompanied). Around 50 or so were undertaken between migration to Mecca and the treaty some were retaliatory for various reasons. (If you understand The pre Islamic Arabian culture) some were friendly eg the first expedition the Prophet’ssa led was to Al-Abwa, where his mother was buried. He was accompanied by sixty Muhajirs. The Holy Prophetsa stayed there for a few days and signed a treaty of friendship with the chief of the Bunu Damrab. Again no record of forced conversions. Of the expeditions three conflicts assumed the dimensions of full-scale war: Badr, Uhud and Ahzab. In some minor expeditions where one or two prisoners were seized, they too were released without any conditions. It was at the battle of Badr that seventy-two prisoners-of-war were taken. Two of them were executed for past crimes; the rest were freed after a ransom was paid. That, in some cases, was limited only to teaching the children of Ansar how to read and write.

If Islam was indeed reliant on forced coversions then during the Truce of Hudaybiyah it would have died out as there was no active fighting instead the numbers swelled through the normal spiritual conversion method. During this time there were 22 expeditions only three in which POW were taken but there is no confirmation as to wheteher they were forcibly converted. Therefore from the Migration uptil the conquest of Mecca there is no record of forced conversions.

The Islamic victory over Mecca proved on that day that conversions by the sword were not a part of the Holy Prophets Life. No one was converted by force a lot of people were forgiven even arch enemies.. The seen is described by Martin Lings:

Troop after troop went by, and, at the passing of each, Abu Sufyan asked who they were, and each time he marveled, either because the tribe in question had hitherto been far beyond the range of influence of Quraish, or because it had recently been hostile to the Prophet, as was the case with the Ghatafanite clan of Ashja, one of whose ensigns was borne by Nuaym, the former friend of himself and Suhayl.

‘Of all the Arabs,’ said Abu Sufayn, ‘These were Muhammad’s bitterest foes.’

‘God caused Islam to enter their hearts,’ said Abbas. ‘All this is by the grace of God

Martin Lings, Muhammad, his Life Based on the Earliest Sources (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1983), 297.


Revenge and forced conversions could have been a justified agenda but even arch enemies were forgiven.

The last phase of the Prophets PBUH life begins with the conquest of Mecca to his death. There were seven expeditions. No fighting in three and no prisoners. In the the others (mainly at Hunayn) 6000 prisoners were taken, an ideal chance to add to the numbers by forcing conversions. This did not occur and the prisoners were freed.

So the Holy Prophets Life shows no direct evidence of Forced concversions.

Hope that helps


Wasalam

Wolf

[Dr T]

The conquest of Mecca itself, neatly skipped over, involved forced conversion

The Jews slaughtered in the market place in Medina were offered a choice, convert or die, most choose to die, a small number choose to convert. How can you call this other than an attempt at forced conversion.

Mohammed was present at both these events. I'm sure that there are numerous others.

Over the centuries of islamic onslaught on it's neighbours muslims have often used forced conversion, and they justified by using the koran and Mohammed's own actions.

Also it may be worth noting that the attacks the muslims were defending themselves against came about as a result oif the muslims bandit like raids in the first place.

[Krusader]

It's intetresting to note that when Muslims conquered a nation or peoples, the conquered had three choices:

1. embrace Islam
2. be executed
3. for Christians and Jews: pay a special poll tax and be subservient to Muslims in all things.

[barnasha]

It's intetresting to note that when Muslims conquered a nation or peoples, the conquered had three choices:

1. embrace Islam
2. be executed
3. for Christians and Jews: pay a special poll tax and be subservient to Muslims in all things.

you must learn to separate wisdom from its application and its rather clumsy and whimsical association to events that take place in actuality. god is not a part of a history book, nor tribe nor culture, and certainly not of any discrete mob of individuals doing anything in terms of humanity.

after all, you wouldn't say the teachings of Jesus instigated the crusades, would you?

[technomage]

you must learn to separate wisdom from its application and its rather clumsy and whimsical association to events that take place in actuality. god is not a part of a history book, nor tribe nor culture, and certainly not of any discrete mob of individuals doing anything in terms of humanity.

after all, you wouldn't say the teachings of Jesus instigated the crusades, would you?
Jesus (pbuh) was not alive on earth during the Crusades. Mohammad (pbuh) was not only alive, but led the conquest of Mecca.

[barnasha]

it is interesting that some or all of the prophets of the house of abraham were involved in war, except for the one who said "i come not to bring peace, but a sword" -

[technomage]

it is interesting that some or all of the prophets of the house of abraham were involved in war, except for the one who said "i come not to bring peace, but a sword" -
:shrug: War and prophecy are not mutually exclusive.

[InChristAlways]

Jesus (pbuh) was not alive on earth during the Crusades. Mohammad (pbuh) was not only alive, but led the conquest of Mecca.Hi Justin. There were many great conquering warriors in the world since the first century, but what about the Lamb of God in the NT? What is your take on Jeremiah 17 where the house of Judah[jews] lose their inheritance? What is the SIN that He came to take away in your view? Thanks and blessings to you.

John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 "This is He of whom I said, 'After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.'

Jeremiah 17:1 "The sin of Judah written with a pen of iron; With the point of a diamond [it is] engraved On the tablet of their heart, And on the horns of your altars, [i]4 And you, even yourself, Shall let go of your heritage which I gave you; And I will cause you to serve your enemies In the land which you do not know; For you have kindled a fire in My anger [which] shall burn forever."

Also, do you by any chance study revelation? Fascinating book on the destruction of Judah/Jerusalem in the first century by the Lion of the tribe of Judah.

Reve 5:5 But one of the elders said to me, "Do not weep. Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has prevailed to open the scroll and to loose its seven seals." 6 And I looked, and behold, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain,

Genesis 49:9 Judah a lion's whelp; From the prey, my son, you have gone up. He bows down, he lies down as a lion; And as a lion, who shall rouse him? [i]10 The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor a lawgiver from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes; And to Him [shall be] the obedience of the people. 11 Binding his donkey to the vine, And his donkey's colt to the choice vine, He washed his garments in wine, And his clothes in the blood of grapes. [revelation 14/Isaiah 5]

[Redwolf]

Jesus (pbuh) was not alive on earth during the Crusades. Mohammad (pbuh) was not only alive, but led the conquest of Mecca.


From the CARM Website:
In the span of only a little over one hundred fifty years, islam engaged in about (or more) 83 military conflicts.
And the beat goes on with the religion of 'peace'.

* 623 - Battle of Waddan
* 623 - Battle of Safwan
* 623 - Battle of Dul-'Ashir
* 624 - Muhammad and converts begin raids on caravans to fund the movement.
* 624 - Zakat becomes mandatory
* 624 - Battle of Badr
* 624 - Battle of Bani Salim
* 624 - Battle of Eid-ul-Fitr and Zakat-ul-Fitr
* 624 - Battle of Bani Qainuqa'
* 624 - Battle of Sawiq
* 624 - Battle of Ghatfan
* 624 - Battle of Bahran
* 625 - Battle of Uhud. 70 Muslims are killed.
* 625 - Battle of Humra-ul-Asad
* 625 - Battle of Banu Nudair
* 625 - Battle of Dhatur-Riqa
* 626 - Battle of Badru-Ukhra
* 626 - Battle of Dumatul-Jandal
* 626 - Battle of Banu Mustalaq Nikah
* 627 - Battle of the Trench
* 627 - Battle of Ahzab
* 627 - Battle of Bani Quraiza
* 627 - Battle of Bani Lahyan
* 627 - Battle of Ghaiba
* 627 - Battle of Khaibar
* 628 - Muhammad signs treaty with Quraish.
* 630 - Muhammad conquers Mecca.
* 630 - Battle of Hunsin.
* 630 - Battle of Tabuk
* 632 - Muhammad dies.
* 632 - Abu-Bakr, Muhammad's father-in-law, along with Umar, begin a military move to enforce Islam in Arabia.
* 633 - Battle at Oman
* 633 - Battle at Hadramaut.
* 633 - Battle of Kazima
* 633 - Battle of Walaja
* 633 - Battle of Ulleis
* 633 - Battle of Anbar
* 634 - Battle of Basra,
* 634 - Battle of Damascus
* 634 - Battle of Ajnadin.
* 634 - Death of Hadrat Abu Bakr. Hadrat Umar Farooq becomes the Caliph.
* 634 - Battle of Namaraq
* 634 - Battle of Saqatia.
* 635 - Battle of Bridge.
* 635 - Battle of Buwaib.
* 635 - Conquest of Damascus.
* 635 - Battle of Fahl.
* 636 - Battle of Yermuk.
* 636 - Battle of Qadsiyia.
* 636 - Conquest of Madain.
* 637 - Battle of Jalula.
* 638 - Battle of Yarmouk.
* 638 - The Muslims defeat the Romans and enter Jerusalem.
* 638 - Conquest of Jazirah.
* 639 - Conquest of Khuizistan and movement into Egypt.
* 641 - Battle of Nihawand
* 642 - Battle of Rayy in Persia
* 643 - Conquest of Azarbaijan
* 644 - Conquest of Fars
* 644 - Conquest of Kharan.
* 644 - Umar is murdered. Othman becomes the Caliph.
* 647 - Conquest of the island of Cypress
* 644 - Uman dies and is succeeded by Caliph Uthman.
* 648 - Campaign against the Byzantines.
* 651 - Naval battle against the Byzantines.
* 654 - Islam spreads into North Africa
* 656 - Uthman is murdered. Ali become Caliph.
* 658 - Battle of Nahrawan.
* 659 - Conquest of Egypt
* 661 - Ali is murdered.
* 662 - Egypt falls to Islam rule.
* 666 - Sicily is attacked by Muslims
* 677 - Siege of Constantinople
* 687 - Battle of Kufa
* 691 - Battle of Deir ul Jaliq
* 700 - Sufism takes root as a sect of Islam
* 700 - Military campaigns in North Africa
* 702 - Battle of Deir ul Jamira
* 711 - Muslims invade Gibraltar
* 711 - Conquest of Spain
* 713 - Conquest of Multan
* 716 - Invasion of Constantinople
* 732 - Battle of Tours in France.
* 740 - Battle of the Nobles.
* 741 - Battle of Bagdoura in North Africa
* 744 - Battle of Ain al Jurr.
* 746 - Battle of Rupar Thutha
* 748 - Battle of Rayy.
* 749 - Battle of lsfahan
* 749 - Battle of Nihawand
* 750 - Battle of Zab
* 772 - Battle of Janbi in North Africa
* 777 - Battle of Saragossa in Spain

[technomage]

Hi Justin. There were many great conquering warriors in the world since the first century, but what about the Lamb of God in the NT? What is your take on Jeremiah 17 where the house of Judah[jews] lose their inheritance? What is the SIN that He came to take away in your view? Thanks and blessings to you.

My take is that this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I would request that you refrain from hijacking threads.

[jason]

after all, you wouldn't say the teachings of Jesus instigated the crusades, would you?
Are you refering to the defensive wars by Christian Europeans to secure safe passage of Christian pilgrims to formerly Christian lands that were conquered by barbaric islamic horders ? The same islamic hordes who were regularly killing peaceful Christian pilgrims ?

And actually I have no problem with the idea that love for their fellow man and a desire to protect them motivated many of the more noble crusaders in their pilgrimage.

Jason

[bhukkadakota]

Are you refering to the defensive wars by Christian Europeans to secure safe passage of Christian pilgrims to formerly Christian lands that were conquered by barbaric islamic horders ? The same islamic hordes who were regularly killing peaceful Christian pilgrims ?

And actually I have no problem with the idea that love for their fellow man and a desire to protect them motivated many of the more noble crusaders in their pilgrimage.

Jason

He may be talking about the death of 12 000 jews in the rhine valley during the first crusades, and they were called christ killers and given the choice to embrace the cross or die. And then the slaughter of all inhabitants in jerusalem including women and newborn children and the burning of 6000 jews in a synagogue then killing 30 000 muslims fleeing to the al Aqsa Mosque.

[jason]

He may be talking about the death of 12 000 jews in the rhine valley during the first crusades, and they were called christ killers and given the choice to embrace the cross or die. And then the slaughter of all inhabitants in jerusalem including women and newborn children and the burning of 6000 jews in a synagogue then killing 30 000 muslims fleeing to the al Aqsa Mosque.
I never said the crusaders where perfect, I just said they where not as bad as most people depict.

Jason

[barnasha]

:shrug: War and prophecy are not mutually exclusive.

what about this is a prophecy?

[barnasha]

I never said the crusaders where perfect, I just said they where not as bad as most people depict.

Jason

the anecdote was intended to prove a point unrelated to this.

[technomage]

what about this is a prophecy?
I guess it depends on whose claims you believe. Christians and Muslims both claim that Jesus was a prophet. Muslims claim that Mohammad was a prophet--indeed, the Seal of the Prophets. Many of the Abrahamic prophets either were involved in wars, or supposedly prophesied of wars.

As one who does not follow a "Book religion," my opinions of these prophets does not necessarily match the beliefs of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims. :shrug: I guess that's only fair--since I do not believe as they do, few members of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam are terribly interested in my opinion.

Justin

[wolf]

I think most of you have completely missed my point. The issue was of forced conversions occuring during the lifetime of Muhammad PBUH. ie on a mass scale of the type "you must convert to Islam or Die" being the only two choices available.

As far as the battles fought by the Prophet Muhammad go I will offer some brief Historical background. Just a few days after the Prophet PBUH left Mecca to migrate to Medina the following letter arrived to Abdullah ibn Ubayy the then chief of Medina:

"You have given asylum to our man, we swear by God that unless you kill him or expel him from Madinah, we will attack you and arrst you and assault your women"

(Sunan Abu Dawood v2 p67 Chapter Khayr an Nadeer)


Now this amounts to an open declaration of hostility to the Prophet and his helpers. Now what would you have him do sit on his hands and wait for them to come and kill him????. As far as the battle of Badr is concerned history is witness that the route cause was the killing of Hadramy a high ranking Meccan.

"And that which spurred the Battle of Badr and every battle fought by the Prophet with the polytheists was that Waqid Sahme had killed Hadramy"


It is pertinent to note that this was never instructed or ordered by the Prophet PBUH it was an act carried out of certain Muslims own volition.
It is recorded that the Prophet was most displeased refused the Booty and said "I had not given you permission to do that". Regardless of said event hostility fro the Quraish was spiralling to a boiling point.


I will post more on this topic in another thread.

[barnasha]

As one who does not follow a "Book religion," my opinions of these prophets does not necessarily match the beliefs of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims. :shrug: I guess that's only fair--since I do not believe as they do, few members of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam are terribly interested in my opinion.

Justin

well good, and you shouldn't try to fit square pegs into round holes anyway. it's really hard to think in terms of 1.3 billion people or 2 billion people, when they are all different people with different ideas.... it is best to focus on ourselves and really understand things.. that's what the prophets did, after all! they were definitely not 'people of the book' as the islamic scriptures say

[Christian2]

barnasha,

You said:

Matthew 10:34, "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword, (35) For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in law; (36) and one's foes will be members of one's own household. (37) Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; (38 and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me. (39) Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.

Jesus is talking to His disciples. He is saying that so great are the demands of discipleship that obedience leads to conflicts within one's family and opposition by one's own parents. Devotion to Jesus must take precedence over one's family obligations and affections. Verse 39, means that full conformity to God's will can be found only by those willing to give up their lives in order that they may find the authentic life God has intended for them to live.

Though the ultimate end of the gospel is peace with God, the immediate result of the gospel is frequently conflict. Conversion to Christ can result in strained family relationships, persecution, and even martyrdom. Following Christ presupposes a willingness to endure such hardships. Though Jesus is called the "Prince of Peace," Christ will have no one deluded into thinking that He calls believers to a life devoid of all conflict.

It is important to recognize that Jesus does not speak about "the sword," but about "a sword." Jesus is not a prophet of the sword. The sword of violence, force and war has no place in his message. The verses speak about the consequence of being obedient to the command of Jesus that we are to preach His message. Some will listen and accept it but many will reject it and react violently. The sword Jesus is talking about is the sword of division that God's word brings. The sword that Jesus brings is the sword that his followers have to suffer, a sword that is applied to them, not a sword that they wield against others.

I'd like to pass on to all an article concerning violence in the Bible vs. the Qur'an:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Terrorism/violence.html

In my opinion the author of the Qur'an completely ignored the peaceful teachings of Jesus Christ and went backwards into the Old Testament and adopted the violence he found there. He adopted an eye for an eye instead of turning the other cheek; take revenge on your enemies instead of loving our enemies.

The violence recorded in history during the times of Muhammad up until today is the result of Muslims following their prophet and the teachings of the Qur'an. Any violence committed by Christians is the result of Christians not following the teachings of Jesus Christ.

[sufisticated]

It's probably worth noting that the 'seerah' (history) of the Prophet, upon which most of the details about various battles etc., is based on a recension that was written three hundred years after the events took place. They probably reflect more the values of the third century Muslims speaking 'about' the Prophet and depicting him as a glorious battle leader, than they are of any factual value.

[Snarf]

In my opinion the author of the Qur'an completely ignored the peaceful teachings of Jesus Christ and went backwards into the Old Testament and adopted the violence he found there. He adopted an eye for an eye instead of turning the other cheek; take revenge on your enemies instead of loving our enemies.

The violence recorded in history during the times of Muhammad up until today is the result of Muslims following their prophet and the teachings of the Qur'an. Any violence committed by Christians is the result of Christians not following the teachings of Jesus Christ.

There's something that we followers of Jesus always seem to forget, and that is this: we believe Jesus and God the Father to be one and the same. Therefore, Jesus was the same deity that killed the Egyptian first born, who told the Israelites to conquer and kill all in their path, and who included in the commandments peaceful verses such as 'homosexuals should be stoned to death' and 'adulterers should be stoned to death.' I might add, Christians still consider these and other commandments to kill certain sinners to be the Word of God, and therefore these are Jesus's commandments too. Or do you suppose that the Father and Son have a multiple personality complex and Mr. Peaceful Jesus had nothing to say about His evil half wanting to slaughter all who opposed His followers?

Jesus Himself never denied the validity of the OT, but said that it was all of God. Therefore, Jesus not only approved but commanded the violence of the OT Himself. I'm not saying this to justify war, only to recognize that the Christian God also commanded His followers to violence; it is hypocritical to try and paint Muslims as being warmongerers while ignoring the violence ordered and committed by Jesus in the Bible.

To Silver Rain and Sufisticated, I welcome your warm, educated posts; they are a wonderful change from the hatemongering that I have usually seen from those who hate Muslims.

[NonAtheist]

Snarf,

So, firstly, from what I can see in your post above, you agree with the premise that at least the first Muslims were very much war-driven.

Secondly, you claim to be a Christian, but then say:

"Or do you suppose that the Father and Son have a multiple personality complex and Mr. Peaceful Jesus had nothing to say about His evil half wanting to slaughter all who opposed His followers?"

Being the faithful Christian that you are, how would you respond to this dilemma of the peaceful/horribly violent Jesus?

Thirdly, I am surprised that a Christian such as yourself is so ignorant of your own Biblical history. Did you even look at the link posted by Christian 2? Here, Ill put it up again so you can read it:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Terrorism/violence.html

[Redwolf]

Snarf,

So, firstly, from what I can see in your post above, you agree with the premise that at least the first Muslims were very much war-driven.

Secondly, you claim to be a Christian, but then say:

"Or do you suppose that the Father and Son have a multiple personality complex and Mr. Peaceful Jesus had nothing to say about His evil half wanting to slaughter all who opposed His followers?"

Being the faithful Christian that you are, how would you respond to this dilemma of the peaceful/horribly violent Jesus?

Thirdly, I am surprised that a Christian such as yourself is so ignorant of your own Biblical history. Did you even look at the link posted by Christian 2? Here, Ill put it up again so you can read it:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Terrorism/violence.html



The bible contains accounts of the controversy between good and evil.
Both serve as examples.

These examples also include how God deals patiently with his property, and how he deals with his property when his patience runs out.

Then, when we see these examples, it gives us an opportunity to choose whom we wish to serve. That the fear of capital punishment does not work, is obvious every day. This is another example why we go to God because of love and not because of fear.

Are you chief, judge, and executioner over your property? It means ..... do you rule it and make decisions on it?

As for mahomet.
Not only does his god approve of his excesses, millions of muslims think of him as the perfect man.
He was a murderer
adulterer
pedophile
terrorist
assassin
plagiarist
epileptic
illiterate (out of breath)
and then some.
and an effective example to his followers to do exactly as he did.
This is denied by the very people who emulate him - AND MUST emulate him. They say they do not participate in things he disapproves, he disapproves of violence, they emulate him, he disapproves, they emulate.....of course, you have noticed how well they emulate him, have you not?
That this scenario is illogical, means nothing to them, they don't participate in Western logic.

I see with deep sorrow in my heart, millions of little girls forced to accept the genitals of men before they are physically and emotionally ready for such activity.

Do you have a little girl? Know someone who does? See little girls every day?
What's natural to 'them', is criminal here and in may other places. It's ok, tho, female is inferior?

Our God created Adam, and then he made Eve from a rib of Adams body.
He made her from his side to be by his side, not from his head to be over his head, not from his foot to be under his foot, and he made her an adult to participate in adult activities between a husband and wife.
He made her an equal.
Name one of God's creation that is inferior to the other?

To draw a comparison between Christ and mahomet and decree them equal is waiting for mahomet to purchase his property through the ultimate sacrifice.
And then fall short, because Christ is also God, and Christ's tomb is empty.

[ArtSe]

There's something that we followers of Jesus always seem to forget, and that is this: we believe Jesus and God the Father to be one and the same. Therefore, Jesus was the same deity that killed the Egyptian first born, who told the Israelites to conquer and kill all in their path, and who included in the commandments peaceful verses such as 'homosexuals should be stoned to death' and 'adulterers should be stoned to death.' I might add, Christians still consider these and other commandments to kill certain sinners to be the Word of God, and therefore these are Jesus's commandments too. Or do you suppose that the Father and Son have a multiple personality complex and Mr. Peaceful Jesus had nothing to say about His evil half wanting to slaughter all who opposed His followers?

Jesus Himself never denied the validity of the OT, but said that it was all of God. Therefore, Jesus not only approved but commanded the violence of the OT Himself. I'm not saying this to justify war, only to recognize that the Christian God also commanded His followers to violence; it is hypocritical to try and paint Muslims as being warmongerers while ignoring the violence ordered and committed by Jesus in the Bible.

Snarf,

Yes, it's true that under the old covenant economy, the old covenant, natural, nation of Israel, were instructed to battle against flesh and blood.

However, do you agree...

a) that the old covenant economy days are forever in the past?
b) that the old covenant, natural, nation of Israel, no longer exists?
c) that the real enemies of the believer are NOT flesh and blood?



Art

[InChristAlways]

Snarf,
Yes, it's true that under the old covenant economy, the old covenant, natural, nation of Israel, were instructed to battle against flesh and blood.
However, do you agree...
a) that the old covenant economy days are forever in the past?
b) that the old covenant, natural, nation of Israel, no longer exists?
c) that the real enemies of the believer are NOT flesh and blood?
ArtHi Art. I don't think muslims read the whole OT and probably stop after Ishmael. Actually, the "flesh" is the enemy of the Spirit and what we battle to "overcome" in Jesus Christ.

Israel indeed received the wrath and vengeance of God in the first century, and Israel is no holier than the city I live in according to the way I view scripture.
Besides, Paul say the Jerusalem is Above now, so why the heck focus on a "physical" city anymore? We now live with the Sword of Peace in Christ. Blessings.

Isaiah 4:2 In that day the Branch of the LORD shall be beautiful and glorious; And the fruit of the earth [shall be] excellent and appealing For those of Israel who have escaped. 3 And it shall come to pass that [he who is] left in Zion and remains in Jerusalem will be called holy -- everyone who is recorded among the living in Jerusalem. 4 When the Lord has washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and purged the blood of Jerusalem from her midst, by the spirit of judgment and by the spirit of burning,

Ezekiel 21:5 "that all flesh may know that I, the LORD, have drawn My sword out of its sheath; it shall not return anymore." '

[Dr T]

Not actually sure what this thread is trying to prove.
It appears to be trying to prove that Mohammed didn't follow the commands in the Koran.
Does this mean that wolf is trying to say that Mohammed was a bad Muslim?

Did I miss it, but I didn't see how the Jewish tribe that were told they could convert or be executed in the market place in Medina wasn't a forced conversion?

The history of Islam is one of blood, read virtually any history and you see a virtually unrelenting series of wars both internal and external.

[Dr T]

He may be talking about the death of 12 000 jews in the rhine valley during the first crusades, and they were called christ killers and given the choice to embrace the cross or die. And then the slaughter of all inhabitants in jerusalem including women and newborn children and the burning of 6000 jews in a synagogue then killing 30 000 muslims fleeing to the al Aqsa Mosque.



On the sack of Jersalem it is now accepted that there was very little differenece from any other sack of a fortified city.

All the inhabitants of Jersalem weren't massacred. The main facts are as follows;
The year before the Crusade arrived at Jerusalem the Arabs captured it from the Turks, expelling or killing the Turkish Muslims inhabitants. Leaving intact the largely subjugated Jewish and Christian population. At this time it is now believed that the total population of Jerusalem was under 50,000, nearly all Jews and Christians

Prior to the arrival of the crusaders the governor expelled as much of the civilian population as he could so that they didn't consume any of the stored supplies.

The only Mulsims in Jerusalem at the time were mainly people associated with the garrison. The main descriptions of bloodshed amongst the Muslims relate to where the large garrison made it last stand.

The main synagogue was burnt down, and many Jews lost their lives there. However it is also well documented that this was against the orders of the leaders of the crusaders. However in the sack of a fortified city these things happen. We also know that not all Jews were killed as letters arranging the ransom of Jews captured in Jerusalem still exist (normal practice for the time). I don't beleive it is known how many survived, but what it does show is that there was no systematic slaughter as claimed above. One oddity was that the letters stated that the women hadn't been raped, which is unusal in a sack, but does confirm other reports from the time.

One also wonders what Saladin was talking about when he captured Jerusalem 100 years later and asked the descendants of the Muslims expelled from Jerusalem to move back to the city? Where these descendants of people expelled after the capture, left before the crusaders arrived or even survivors of the Arab sack the year before.

The Muslims of the time had no problem working with the Crusaders , once Jerusalem was captured and most of the crusaders went home there are numerous examples of mutual cooperation between the crusading state and the Muslims exist, unlikely if the atrocities commited were as stated above.

The supposed mass murder of the Muslims civilian population seems to have started the rounds around the time that Saladin was building his empire using it as a rallying point for the muslim states he was taking over.

To summarise.

1) Historians now accept that there was nothing unusal in the sack of Jerusalem.
2) There was no large scale massacre of a civilain Muslim population , as there was no large scale Muslim population present (mainly due to the Arabs killing / expelling the Turks the year before, just as teh Turks had killed/ expelled the Arabs 25 years befiore)).
3) It is not possible to say how the main synagogue came to be burnt down, but it is clear that is was against the orders of the leadrers of the crusade, and we do know that some Jews survived and were ransomed.

All sacks of cities are brutal, and this was no exception. Having refused terms the city was put to the sack.

The garrison outnumbered the attackers and as usual in such a case were not spared, and this probably represents the bulk of the Muslim loses.