![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I think it's funny how these verses quoted to prove forced conversion in Islam all preceed or are proceeded by other verses that change the meanings of these verses completely. Here are some examples:
Sura (9:29) - Is this a joke? It clearly states that they, the non-Muslims, had a choice of either paying Jizya, a very payable tax (common knowledge, I'll prove it if you challenge this statement), or leaving the Muslim lands. How is that a forced conversion? Clearly biased, and i'm taking this verse off.
Sura (9:5) - Of course, this looks like a very explicit verse that condones forced conversions, but let's take a look at the verse that comes RIGHT BEFORE this verse, "Sura (9:4) Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him]." [2]
Funny, because it clearly states that the Pagans (polytheists) can easily keep from violent ends by just agreeing to treaties with the Muslims and not going against the Muslims (or supporting the Muslim's enemies). It makes perfect sense, basically, don't try to fight us, and we won't try to fight you. Try to fight us, and we will fight and kill you, or you can convert to Islam. Now, is that really a forced conversion? Sure, if you forget all about the part that stated that you can easily avoid this by just making a treaty and agreeing on not supporting the enemies of the Muslims. I mean, in reality, these Pagans are living in Muslim territory. What more can you ask for?
So I'll be taking off the verse Sura (9:5), too.
Now for the verse Sura (9:12). It refers to "them", but in the verse after, Sura (9:13), it says, "Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers." [3]
This clearly states that the Muslims were attacked first in this quarrel, and when attacked first, you may fight back. Not only are the non-Muslims attacking the Muslims, but these non-Muslims are living in Muslim lands, under Muslim rule and law. Of course, they must either leave the lands or repent and convert to Islam. How can you attack the ruler of a country and expect nothing to happen to you outside of being killed? At least the Muslims give the choice of conversion to their religion. Is this really a forced conversion?
Verse 9:4 and 9:6 states that those who seek peace should not be fought, I clearly edited the page of that, providing proof, but everytime I find someone undoing my edit.-- 82.201.248.102 ( talk) 06:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC) I will continue this later, but before I take these verses off, I would like to see other's comments on my critisism of this bias article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.184.192 ( talk) 02:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the forced conversion is not that big issue at present, it is the law of many Islam country that concern me. Especially those Muslims who wants to converts to other religion. In country like Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi arabia, these behaviour will be sentenced to death! Which in my point of view is the most severe discrimination towards non-muslims! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.117.228.62 ( talk) 15:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Muhammed and his followers never practice forced conversion of the Pagan Arabs during Muhammad's conquest of Arabia.
The fact is that Moham/med was far less kind to Jews. He did force Jews to convert. Moreover, several dozen Jews were beheaded as he and his teenage bride looked on. He vented his anger on a Jewish poet named K'ab bin Al-Ashraf, who, according to the Prophet's first biographer, Ibn Ishaq, "composed amatory verses of an insulting nature about Muslim women." Mohammed asked his followers, "Who is willing to kill K'ab bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle." Mohammed found a volunteer who killed the poet. Afterward, Mohammed issued an order to "kill any Jew that falls into your power." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvdhog100 ( talk • contribs) 10:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Eh, if you want some sort of historical evidence, just look to the founding of the Arabic empire. They basically had a sort of caste system, in which Muslims were up top, Christians and Jews were right below them, then came other non-abrahamic worshipers, and finally slaves. They never forcefully converted anyone, but the fact that there were quite a few benefits to being Muslim during the height of the arabic empire, a very large number of people chose to convert to receive a higher place in society, better trade prospects, etc. There is quite a significant example of no forced conversion.
Even in most modern countries, while they may not be very kind to Jews, some of the mostly Muslim countries have significant Christian populations, such as Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, and a couple others. Generally speaking, they do not receive quite the same rights as Muslims in some cases, but none of them are forced to convert or killed because they are christian, otherwise there wouldn't be any christians living there at all! 50.135.250.142 ( talk) 19:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that threats of the non-worldly type should be included also. For most religious people the threat of eternal damnation is far more "threatening" than worldly torture, or death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.177.194 ( talk) 14:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The comment above was made by me. I decided to make an account so that I can contribute more. ( talk)
I agree that any kind of pressure physical or psychological constitutes force. As such threats of eternal damnation and promises of eternal reward used as incentives to conversion constitute forced conversion. If there are no objection I'll edit the preamble to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.231 ( talk) 14:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no evidence of any discussion of the proposed merger either here or Talk:Religious Intolerance. So the merge tag's being removed. JASpencer 14:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I have a few reservations over this line "The Muslim attitude toward Jews is reflected in various verses throughout the Koran, the holy book of the Islamic faith. "They [the Children of Israel] were consigned to humiliation and wretchedness. They brought the wrath of God upon themselves, and this because they used to deny God's signs and kill His Prophets unjustly and because they disobeyed and were transgressors" (Sura 2:61). According to the Koran, the Jews try to introduce corruption (5:64), have always been disobedient (5:78), and are enemies of Allah, the Prophet and the angels (2:9798)."
Surah 2:61 reads "and remember ye said: 'O Moses! We cannot endure One kind of food (always);So beseech they Lord for us what the earth groweth-it's pot herbs and cucumbers, its garlic lentils and onions' He said 'Will ye exchange the better for the worse? Go ye down to any town and ye shall find what ye want!' They were convered with humiliation and misery; they drew on themselves the wrath of allah. This is because they went on rejecting the signs of allah and slaying his messengers without just cause. This because they rebelled and went on transgressing" To me this verse signifies the view of rebellious children of Israel, not all Jews in general (Moses was a Jew no?) It also completely fails to point out the very next verse which states
Surah 2:62 "Those who believe (in the Qu'ran) and follow the Jewish (scriptures) and the Christians and the Sabians-any who believe in Allah and the last day and work righteousness shall have thier reward with thier lord; on them shall be no fear; nor shall they grieve"
Which undermines the proposed theory
Verse 5:78 reads
5:78 "Curses were pronounced on those among the children of Israel who rejected faith"
I don't think this is trying to say that all Jews are by thier nature disobedient, just that rebellious children of israel were cursed.
Verses 2:97-98 do not even mention Jews.
Also note that this article is on the specific nature of historic conversion to Islam, and whether or not the Qu'ran says that Jews are disobedient or corrupt is irrelevant to the topic, and should instead be included in the Islamic view of Judaism article. I'm removing the statement
The sources for this article are at present nowhere near what is required in Wikipedia. As this is largely a historical article, can I suggest we stick to books and scholarly articles by historians. For the current views of the various religions, books by theologians would also be appropriate. For current allegations of forced conversion, major human rights organisations and/or reliable news sources. Does this meet with everyone's agreement? Itsmejudith 10:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
As for sources, I like Judith's ideas. Claims by politicians are the least encyclopedic and should not be considered "sources" but rather "comments". We might want to have a separate article on the Politics of forced conversion or the Forced conversion controversy, highlighting and summarizing politicians' and activists's views. This relates to the pope's (failed?) attempt in 2006 to start a dialogue on faith and reason. -- Uncle Ed 16:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I found this in a subscription-only website:
Perhaps "forced conversion" is the wrong article to mention this? -- Uncle Ed 21:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the most recent changes to the Islam section, as I believe they where a clear attempt to whitewash these issues against Wikipedias policies regarding neutrality. Unreferenced POV claims such as "The general position in Islam is that forced conversions are not acceptable" should have no place in this article, and misrepresenting sources such as this, http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=34770&ln=eng where Ibn Baaz clearly support forces conversions: "Obliging a person to adhere to the truth in which is guidance and happiness is better for him than falsehood. Just as a person may be forced to do the duty that he owes to other people even if that is by means of imprisonment or beating, so forcing the kaafirs to believe in Allaah alone and enter into the religion of Islam is more important and more essential, because this will lead to their happiness in this world and in the Hereafter." should not have any place in this article either. -- Karl Meier 15:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Karen armstrong's comment is related to forced conversion by the Government and not by the individuals. I am inserting another scholarly opinion over it. If someone thinks that this has to be NPOVed, he/she is most welcome to do so. TruthSpreader reply 18:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
As long as the claim that "nobody in the Islamic empire was forced to accept the Islamic faith" stands, the tag must stay too. This sentence is saying that literally nobody was ever ever ever forced in the Islamic Empire, which means conservatively speaking from Muhammad's death in 632 until the fall of the Caliphate in 1258. And it doesn't say forced by the government or local rulers but forced in general. Is there really anyone who wouldn't call this ridiculous. Str1977 (smile back) 19:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I intend to take out the reference to Ibn Baaz's views because it is to a website that may not be reliable. There is no guarantee of the quality of the translation into English or whether the source is quoted selectively. Ibn Baaz's opinion on forced conversion is notable, however, and a reference could go back in if, for example, a statement by him has been translated by a scholar and published in a book in English. Itsmejudith 18:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem with the Crusades passage is that the Crusades simply were not about converting anyone to anything but about ensuring unhindered access to the Holy places. Some people might suffer from this misconception that the Crusades were about conversions but that doesn't make it true. Str1977 (smile back) 19:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Rather than bandy around assertions, what citations can be provided on this (both directions). -- Nachtrabe 18:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the definition in the intro is wrong. Conversion is the acceptance of a certain religion, not the repudiation of one. One converts to Christianity, to Islam, to Buddhism etc. With forced conversions this is also the objective of the one using force: he wants someone to adopt his religion and not merely make him leave another. The intro should reflect that. Str1977 (smile back) 19:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Rather cherry-picky aren't we? Why not put those lines which tell Muslim armies to protect non-muslims.
The Quran clearly authorizes force in conversion: See Surah's 9:29, 2:193. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.143.42 ( talk) 01:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Not entirely comfortable with that being in the article, and it reeks of WP:NPOV issues. In short, it doesn't come off as neutral - but that's my opinion. Can somebody either clean it up or remove it, please? -- Dennisthe2 16:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Karl Maier can you explain this revert: [5]?
How is the source you are adding in any way a reliable source? Bless sins ( talk) 18:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Is the Islam qa website a reliable source for rulings in Islamic law?
'Islam QA' is definitely not a reliable source, as its format is rather blog-style. That is, quick answers to questions written on the run. It is not an in-depth type of website. The site is basically a forum. The citation used was merely a quick response to "Question #34770" which someone submitted. I think we should only use authoritative sources, not blogs, not forums, and not quick 'question & answer' websites. Thanks, -- Lester 23:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
the issue is not necessarily whether or not the website is reliable (i don't think it is on this article), the issue is why one scholar (presuming the website's attribution to him has been correct) out of literally thousands has been chosen and had his view presented alongside the majority (and academic) view, as if they are of equal prevelance. hence this is a case of undue weight. ITAQALLAH 16:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
IslamQA doesn't look like a reliable source as it's not scholarly and apparently self-published. If the issue isn't the web site's reliablility, what is it, exactly? Leadwind 04:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The article Kein Zwang im Glauben on the German wikipedia on this phrase informs the reader in the introduction paragraph that the verse has been abrogated by classic exegesis and later mentions Sura 9, 73 as an example. How accurate is this claim? -- 84.137.40.109 ( talk) 17:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the short section on Buddhism because it does not describe forced conversion to Buddhism. The only example cited is that of the persecution of Christians in Japan under the Tokugawa Shogunate. This did not involve forced conversion to Buddhism. Rather, the authorities considered the Roman Catholic Church to be a subversive force and therefore suppressed Roman Catholicism. They did not care whether people were Buddhists; they only cared that they were not Catholic. It is therefore an example of religious persecution, but not an example of forced conversion to Buddhism. Bill ( talk) 22:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Please us only reliable soruces in the article. Thereligionofpeace.com is not considered a reliable source. Also don't interpret Qur'anic verses or hadith to make a point, only scholars can do that, not wikipedians. Bless sins ( talk) 20:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The kidnap of two journalists should be under twenty century allegations, not islam, and certainly not both. I have removed it from the islam section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEasyWay8 ( talk • contribs) 19:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Both Bernard Lewis and RS Lal, while decent scholars as far as they go, are also well-known to have political agendas hostile to Islam (for Heaven's sake, Lal is listed on the template for Hindu politics!) and if their work is to be used, a counter weight is necessary. I don't have my actual books with me (which is why I relied on the Cartoon History, which is quite well-sourced but not quite academic-level), but such sources must be found. At the very least, Karen Armstrong's counterarguments to Lewis can be brought to bear. Lockesdonkey ( talk) 18:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The teachings of Islam mainly promote religious tolerance(2:256, 60:8-9, 4:90, 10:99, 18:29, 88:21-22, 8:61, 9:4-6), however, I would like to argue about Sura 9 since It is a very controversial one, and since Its verses are most oftenly cited to prove that Islam does not promote religious tolerance, The Sura promotes that It was all under a state of war, and not of peace (9:4-6, 9:13) - given the above interpretation, It would be simple to find its consistency with other verses like those mentioned above. 196.205.204.151 ( talk) 22:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The article says "In practice, forced conversions have been very common throughout all Islamic history, although it was but rarely official government policy" and cites Lewis and Waines.
Lewis says (on p.95), "Forced conversion of this kind was comparatively rare..."
Waines says (on p.53), "Examples of forced conversions exist, despite the clearest scritpural porhibition, but in any case appear to have been rare."
The "common" appears to have been a typo that radically differs what the authors are trying to say (just as missing "not" in a sentence can have the same effect). Bless sins ( talk) 17:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the following sources are unreliable:
Let me know if you disagree. Bless sins ( talk) 18:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I am from Pakistan and I find the allegation that "[In Pakistan} Around 20 to 25 Hindu girls are abducted every month and converted to Islam forcibly", to be completely preposterous. That is 300 girls a year, and nearly 19,000 girls since the Indo-Pak partition in 1947 (assuming a near constant rate of abduction). Where was this statistic taken from? Who recorded these numbers? Where are the websites with hundreds (if not thousands) of families asking for help (and if no one is asking for help out of fear then how do you know)? Where are the pictures of the abductees? Or ANY of the relevant data? Where is the source? I'm sorry but this is just baseless propaganda quite unbecoming of the standards of Wikipedia.
Also regarding the following line:
"It was reported in February 2007 that Hindu and Sikh organisations in the UK believe that young women of these faiths are being coerced by young men they meet at university into converting to Islam."
Who cares what some religiously motivated organisations believe? Their "belief" cannot be stated as a fact here. Especially considering the next few lines:
"A spokeswoman for the police said: "We are aware of it as an issue that concerns the Hindu community but are not aware, without further research, of any specific incidents reported to police. We would encourage anyone who has been targeted in this way to seek help."
So some religious zealots were getting paranoid, or just looking for limelight and they complained so the local Police department told them "we have no reason to believe you just because you say so, but if it actually happens, you'll get all the help you need" in the most polite and diplomatic way. So what is this incident doing here on the "Forced conversion" page?
And this little gem:
"In October 2009 it was reported that Muslim groups in the Indian state of Kerala have been engaging in a "Love Jihad", whereby Muslim men were trained to seduce college-going Hindu and Christian girls to marry them and forcibly convert to Islam."
Reported by whom? Where are these training camps? Who is training them? The PFI? The Wikipedia page on PFI states quite clearly that those allegations were found to be baseless repeatedly and nothing like "love jihad" existed:
"In late 2009, The Karnataka CID (Criminal Investigation Department) reported that although it was continuing to investigate, it had found no evidence that a "Love Jihad" existed.[55] In late 2009, Director-General of Police Jacob Punnoose reported that although the investigation would continue, there was no evidence of any organsation using men "feigning love" to lure your women to convert to Islam.[56] In early 2010, the State Government reported to the Karnataka High Court that although a large number of young Hindu women had converted to Islam, there was no organized attempt to convince them to do so."
Where are the credible sources and unbiased references that are the hallmark of Wikipedia?
Please fix the above to the regular standards of this website. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.10.113 ( talk) 13:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Can we agree that the following answers are consistent with definition of "forced conversion".
If one is forced to observe religious law, does it equate to forced conversion? Yes.
If one is forced to pretend they have converted, does it equate to forced conversion? Yes.
Is forced conversion from Atheism or Agnosticism to Islam forced conversion? Yes.
If the answers above are correct, then countries that do not practice "Separation of church and state" are by definition practicing forced conversion. This would include many (or most?) predominantly Muslim countries.
Also, we need to address indoctrination of children, and how that relates to forced conversion. Clearly, if children are not given a choice, they are effectively subjected to a process of forced conversion, since children are not born with philosophy and beliefs that are consistent with any specific religious dogma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reasonserved ( talk • contribs) 17:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
This section was removed. It should not have been removed. All of the claims made about conversion under the Hasmonean Empire are given references. If you want to discuss some change to the section then please suggest some change. Please note WP:RNPOV as follows 'Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources' and 'Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view must be mentioned if it can be documented by notable, reliable sources, yet note that there is no contradiction'. Academic opinion is that forced conversion was used in this historical instance. The extent and methods are the subject of historical debate, and that is why I chose a reference that referred to 'expulsion or conversion', and stated that this was either by threats of exile, or threats of death, depending on the source. Do you wish me to add further academic references? How many will suffice? Dalai lama ding dong ( talk) 19:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I have got a lot of information on state atheism and forced conversion of religious subjects which I would like to share unfortunately someone keeps deleting, it is all relevant and sourced so I don't see the problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.251.57 ( talk) 22:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Though atheism itself being a rejection of organised religion has no central structure whereby it has espoused an ideology of forcing people to leave religion, many groups as proponents of atheism have participated in forced conversion such as Communists, as the former president of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev aptly stated, the Soviet communist state carried out a comprehensive “war on religion.” [1] He lamented that the Bolsheviks, his predecessors, even after the civil war ended in the early 1920s, during a time of “peace,” had “continued to tear down churches, arrest clergymen, and destroy them. This was no longer understandable or justifiable. Atheism took rather savage forms in our country at that time. [2] The roots of this hatred and intolerance of religion lie in the essence of communist ideology. Marx dubbed religion the “opiate of the masses,” and opined that, “Communism begins where atheism begins.” [3] Speaking on behalf of the Bolsheviks in his famous October 2, 1920 speech, Lenin stated matter-of-factly: “We do not believe in God.” Lenin insisted that “all worship of a divinity is a necrophilia.” [4]He wrote in a November 1913 letter that “any religious idea, any idea of any God at all, any flirtation even with a God is the most inexpressible foulness … the most dangerous foulness, the most shameful ‘infection.’” James Thrower of the University of Virginia (a Russia scholar and also a translator) says that in this letter the type of “infection” Lenin was referring to was venereal disease. [5] “There can be nothing more abominable than religion,” wrote Lenin in a letter to Maxim Gorky in January 1913. [6] On December 25, 1919, Christmas Day, Comrade Lenin issued the following order, in his own writing: “To put up with ‘Nikola’ [the religious holiday] would be stupid—the entire Cheka must be on the alert to see to it that those who do not show up for work because of ‘Nikola’ are shot.” [7] Under Lenin, this was not an isolated occurrence. Significantly, communists did not merely try to block or halt religious faith but to reverse it. This was particularly true for Romania, even before the Nicolae Ceausescu era. This meant not just forbidding religious practice and jailing ministers and believers but employing torture to force them to renounce their faith. It was not enough to contain, silence, even punish believers in prison; it was decided they must be tortured in truly unimaginably degrading ways to attempt to undo religious faith. [8]
I don't see whats wrong with this, the quotes are origial first hand quotes as an introduction to the subject.
Also why do you constantly undo edit where I delete referenced quote from india 21st century section as its from the 1990's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.255.108 ( talk) 21:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Obviously you did not read the referenced article it states between 1992 and 1995. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.255.108 ( talk) 22:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The article according to reference is from 1995 why is it in the 21st century section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.106.177 ( talk) 12:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC) Bold text
Forced conversion is about forcing an ideology, and state atheism should not be an exception. Of course, state atheism was related to communism and other radical ideologies, but the same we can say about Chrstianity and the european culture, for example, or Islam and Arabian culture. -- Josell2 ( talk) 04:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Nshuks7 ( talk) 17:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Forced conversion was debated between Muslim scholars. And the majority agreed the forced conversion is not allowed. People such as Ibn Tymia, Ibn al-Qaym, and Ibn Uthaimeen. But again the paper is in Arabic. Here-- BelalSaid ( talk) 00:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Roman Catholicism is a form of Christianity, so I edited it right. Asking the difference between Catholics and Christians is like asking the difference between Americans and Humans. Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.255.179 ( talk) 23:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I have a problem with the following According to Sian, the narrative is similar to accusations of " white slavery" lodged against the Jewish community and foreigners to the UK and the US, with the former having ties to anti-semitism that mirror the Islamophobia betrayed by the modern narrative
not only is it not NPOV, it doesn't actually define what 'accusations of white slavery were lodged against the jewish community' what is the definition of the 'foreigners' is. what accusations were lodged against these so called foreigners, what religion were they? Also it doesn't actually add any useful information to the article other than an emotional comparison, this article which is about forced conversions from one religion to another, not sexual abuse and/or prostitution. This quote simply does not belong in the article, it has nothing to do with religion, it could be included in the article on white slavery perhaps
another question to ask, is it widely accepted by academics and society at large that 'islamophobia is the same as historical anti semitism, because thats what this quote claims Coasttrip ( talk) 22:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I decided to remove the section of Islamic quotes. My reasoning:
1. It amounts to original research to just quote scriptures. 2. All religious scripture is hotly contested with many interpretations. 3. Debates over the interpretation of scriptures would need secondary reliable sources. 4. No other religion has its religious scriptures quoted and it's unfair to single out Islam. 5. It's better to just list the known incidents. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 20:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Scripture quotations were again added back, and I removed them. To build a section that is NPOV would have to be "this scholar said this, however this scholar said that". That will take some work. To just quote scripture is WP:OR. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 17:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. This scriptures are important and have a good source.-- 79.192.50.218 ( talk) 22:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
"I disagree. This scriptures are important"
and have a good source
I question the quality of this source:
That is just some website. I don't know if it passes as a WP:RS. I don't know if the translations are accurate, who made it, etc. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 17:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
The secondary sources are: Khan, M. Muhsin. Sahih Bukhari. Peace Vision, 1986; see Ibn 'Umar at Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24
Ahmedov, Aibek. "Religious Minorities and Apostasy in Early Islamic States: Legal and Historical Analysis of Sources." J. Islamic St. Prac. Int'l L. 2 (2006): 1.
Al-Hilali, Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din, and Muhammad Muhsin Khan. Translation of the Meanings of the Noble Quran in the English Language. IslamKotob, 2009; see page 40, translation at footnote 3.
for the first quote and
Mogler, Christian. The Rise of Islam: How could this small religious movement become within centuries the dominant religion of the Mediterranean, and why was Christianity not able to stop it. GRIN Verlag, 2009.
for the second quote. I think this sources are correct.-- 79.192.38.214 ( talk) 15:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore the quotes are from the Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement and are also correct!-- 79.192.38.214 ( talk) 18:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
"The secondary sources are"
No, those just sources that are listing the primary sources. A secondary source would be a historian commenting on particular passages. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 06:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
@ NeilN: Please explain why you removed this: In prior years too, around 25 Hindu girls have been reported to be abducted every month and converted to Islam forcibly in Pakistan, as reported by Pakistani media. [1]- Raam2 ( talk) 20:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Religious convictions are supposedly the acceptance of and believing in certain (unproveable) dogmas. How can somebody be forced to believe something? The words "to force" and "to believe" aren's compatible very much, are they? It's like saying "I really don't believe Santa Klaus ever came down the chimney, but everybody around me was so upset about me not believing that I just had to believe it too." Or recent BBC documentary had such fragment of an interview: "I really like and believe in Christianity, but they threatened me, so that I had to convert." This really implies that there is no belief is really involved, just a mechanical following of some procedure. Asserting the validity of this topic really undermines the validity of the concept involved in it. The whole topic turns into some kind of nonsense. Yurivict ( talk) 03:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
This material does not belong here. It is from Primary sources, and it is Original Research to suggest that it relates to forced conversion.
″Sahih al-Bukhari, for example, describes Muhammed asking his followers,
Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah." — Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:2:25 see also Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:59:643[57][58][59][60]
Sahih Muslim similarly, in Book 19, describes the conquest of mecca where when faced with a group from the Quraish, Muhammed asked his followers,
"You see the ruffians and the lowly followers of the Quraish. And he indicated by striking one of his hands over the other that they should be killed." — Sahih Muslim, 19:4395 see also Sahih Muslim, 1:29 Sahih Muslim, 1:30 Sahih Muslim, 1:31 Sahih Muslim, 1:32 Sahih Muslim, 1:33 Sahih Muslim, 1:34 Sahih Muslim, 1:35 [61]
These quotes do not relate to forced conversion. The subjects are no told that they must convert. They are offered the chance to keep their beliefs. All monotheisms have texts that state that only their G-d shall be worshipped. If we include these general quotes about death to unbelievers then there are large sections of the Hebrew Bible that need to be included as well.
In particular the second quote just says that unbelievers are to be killed. It does NOT say that they are given a choice between conversion and death, or conversion and penalty. The application of separate laws to believers and non believers is not enough to justify the charge of forced conversion. In Israel and Judah there were separate laws for followers of Yahweh and Gentiles. Can I bring them in here, as examples of forced conversion? Does the fact that Atheists were often allowed to stand for public office in Western Europe qualify as forced conversion? If so then I will add it in, as well as the results of polls in the U.S. stating that many voters would not vote for an atheist, as that can fit into this definition of forced conversion. Theredheifer ( talk) 11:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
"I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle"does not let anyone keep their beliefs, and it's most definitely not original research, but well and properly sourced. Thomas.W talk 11:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Making changes to the article to make a point, is disruptive behavior. (see WP:POINT) If you continue on that line and actually try to edit the article in that way, you will face a block or a topic ban. I am ignoring that line of discussion. Please discuss the text you are objecting to. once we have resolved that, if you want to discuss other changes that are not point-y you can do as you will. but you have poisoned the well on adding content from Chronicles. thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 21:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
I have started reading this article and the first thing I notice is that the section (religion and power) starts with the weasel words: "In general, anthropologists have shown" just to later make a lot of strong claims about all religion in general. I don't think such claims should be made without attribution. I suggest attributing all claims to their author(s) or removing them. GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 14:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Forced conversion. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Expand the section on 'Hinduism' by adding more recent information about Hindu group Ghar Wapsi in India, who have been forcibly converting Muslims and Christians across India. (ManFromMohenjodaro 21:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC))
Aurangazeb never made forced conversion to non muslim to convert muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.110.12.166 ( talk) 11:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
"Forced conversion to Atheism"? How does one "convert" to atheism?? This is an absurd use of terminology. It should be changed either to "secularization", "dechristenization" or at the very least "forced irreligion". The current thing makes no sense because you can't force someone not to believe in God, only to not follow certain rituals or spread their faith. Neither of those two is even possible in atheism. Bataaf van Oranje ( talk) 11:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
The cited sources, Marsh and Adappur mention forced conversion, As user @ Anupam: said ″Removing a section because you feel that a university professor has a "misunderstanding" won't fly here″, and the source very clear about that: ″It might be added that the most modern example of forced "conversions" came not from any theocratic state, but from a professedly atheist government — that of the Soviet Union under the Communists″.-- Jobas ( talk) 08:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Atheist section should stay because in USSR some believers were forced to renounce their religious faith and adopt atheist materialist belief system. Here are some citations to support my claim: "A person convinced that he possessed spiritual truth was required to conceal it from his own children! In the twenties the religious education of children was classified as a political crime under Article 58-10 of the Code—in other words, counterrevolutionary propaganda! True, one was still permitted to renounce one's religion at one's trial: it didn't often happen but it nonetheless did happen that the father would renounce his religion and remain at home to raise the children while the mother went to the Solovetsky Islands. (Throughout all those years women manifested great firmness in their faith.) All persons convicted of religious activity received tenners, the longest term then given."- Solzhenitsyn, A. (1974). THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO 1918-1956 An Experiment in Literary Investigation I-II (pp. 37-38) (T. Whitney, Trans.). New York: Harper & Row.
"Efforts were spent on trying to convince clergy to renounce their ordination, sometimes with promises of good jobs, and other times under physical threat. They had nearly 200 successful cases, including a few who joined in the atheistic efforts by contributing to the propaganda brochure My porvali s religiei (We Broke with Religion)."- Christopher Marsh, RELIGION AND THE STATE IN RUSSIA AND CHINA, p. 73 Mr.strangerX ( talk) 20:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Xenophrenic, you're welcome. I attempted to improve the referencing without changing any of the core content but you reverted me. I should note that I attributed the Soviet actions to "Communists", something that I thought you would appreciate. Furthermore, I also acknowledged your comment about the sentence that included a quote from medievalist Sandra Miesel and removed it. I hope that you can understand that I am willing to compromise and accept any valid points you might have. As such, would you be willing to restore the additional sources that I added, as well as the attribution to Communists? If not, I can go ahead and do that as it is evident that editors have provided substantive reasoning to support their inclusion. The section on Atheism has several references from historians, such as Christopher Marsh, Paul Froese, among others (quite unlike other parts of this article). I plan to add more information about how churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. were forcibly converted into Museums of Scientific Atheism. The The Destruction of Memory: Architecture at War by Robert Bevan states that "Churches, synagogues, mosques and monasteries were shut down in the immediate wake of the Revolution. Many were converted to secular uses or Museums of Atheism (antichurches), whitewashed and their fittings removed." This is just one example of a source that I plan to add to the section. Thanks, Anupam Talk 17:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone and CerealKiller Yum. The argument that Xenophrenic is proposing is as Anupam has noted, not really relevant to this page. Whether atheism is a religion or not is not the point of the article. (Even though we have already seen examples of atheism as religion in various forms through Unitarian congregations, Sunday Assembly, North Texas Church of Freethought, First Church of Atheism and its multiple chapters and even research how atheists in America raise their children in light of atheism in "Freethought Denominations" - Atheism, Secularity, The Family, And Children by Christel Manning in Atheism and Secualrity Vol. 1, we can even add more things like almost 30% of atheists from multiple countries engage in prayer [14], other things like books for street promotion of atheism as an ultimate worldview, and perhaps we can include other studies on "convinced atheists" in Europe that have diverse and prevalent supernatural beliefs besides Gods - Atheism And Secularity In The Netherlands by Loek Halman in Atheism and Secualrity Vol. 2). It sure is an interesting world we live in and abstractions of religion and atheism don't seem to do justice to the reality of people's lives. Atheism, just like theism, is both religiously and secularly diverse with variant traditions and manifestations. You said "every atheist you meet will have a different "worldview", but this is universal since every Theist you meet literally will have a different worldview too!! Theists are not uniform in ideas, beliefs, and concepts - that is why Hindus and Muslims and Jews have different worldviews.
Back to the article. There is already a general agreement here among editors that the stuff on the Soviets and French on forced conversion belong in the article because it is clear that even if atheism is seen as not a religion (can be seen easily as a worldview instead - which is what I was proposing we do in chaning the lead to "other worldviews") still engaged in forced conversion of peoples deepest beliefs about reality - this is what the article is about. The active promotion of atheism by the League of the Militant Godless, as opposed to merely nullifying peoples theistic beliefs, surely fits well in the forced conversion article because atheists actively engaged in changing people's ultimate worldviews about reality by force - as is documented in the references provided by Anupam [15]. The sources clearly state this - the quotes are there. The activities by the League of the Militant Godless was not just about attacking other religions, it was about "promoting atheism" and "bringing atheism to the masses" as well. The fact that the League was even made speaks volumes on the fact that the League was not providing merely open and free information to educate people on theism and Christianity or Islam so they can decide for themselves if they should hold these beliefs. There was procession which did lead to repression, which is why once the Soviets went down, non-atheist beliefs went up significantly on surveys on religious identification. The people had been were repressed (Pew Research Center's comments on this increase after the fall of the Soviet Union [16]. This is within the purview of the article.
In terms of Paganism, well it is not a religion and is certainly not a class of religions either see the Patheos library on it [17]. Its etymology shows that even the term "pagan" started to be used from the 14th-15th century with modern usage beginning in the 20th century [18]. It is a modern abstraction for a mish-mash of beliefs and cultures that are not generalizable. Mayan1990 ( talk) 02:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Considering that most editors here are favorable to keeping the stuff (even other editors like Jobas looking at the history of the section), I went ahead and restored the material with a minor change. Please do not revert it since this is the current consensus. You can still talk about it here though to see if there is any need for changes. Mayan1990 ( talk) 03:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Forced conversion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Can we organize this talk page by religion, like the article is? I realize this isn't typical, but I think it would help comments and conversation be more useful. I wouldn't change any of the existing headings, but would add a higher level heading and move content around. Sondra.kinsey ( talk) 13:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I noticed a few opportunities for improvement in the lead to the Islam section. First, it says "Islam explicitly prohibits forced conversion" This talk page, at least, reveals some debate on this. What does "Islam" mean here? Islamic legal tradition? The Koran? Furthermore, this statement then seems to be contradicted a few sentences later, where the article reads "In theory, ... pagans faced a choice between conversion to Islam and fight to the death". I'd appreciate a more knowledgeable editor on this topic clarifying these issues. Sondra.kinsey ( talk) 14:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Forced conversion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Throughout the middle ages Europeans who were not Christian were under constant threat of being enslaved and castrated(if they were male) with jews and Christians being the instigators of the threat and muslims being the recipients of the European slaves . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.100.44.118 ( talk) 15:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Forced conversion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca:8080/RIR_RDI/RIR_RDI.aspx?id=454343&l=eWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Colonial Americas
Whenever there have been conflicts, there’s no doubt that forced conversions have occurred. However the number of forced conversions in Iberian colonies at the beginning of European colonization would’ve have been limited to the native population within and nearby the boundaries of the established colonies. Particularly since most of the warriors that defeated the native empires comprised primarily of other indigenous nations so conversion would not have been something that took place overnight. In the subsequent decades and centuries Old World diseases wiped out a large portion of the indigenous population, including allies, which allowed Westernized biracials, who have outnumbered those of mostly European ancestry early on in the colonization period, to thrive at their expense given that they were less susceptible and vulnerable to those diseases, eventually gaining the ascendancy and gradually absorbed, forcefully or voluntarily, the remaining indigenous population spread over a vast area. Therefore forced conversions would have been restricted to the first few years after the defeat of the indigenous empires. Conversion to Christianity by other indigenous populations all over the region would’ve happened across many decades and centuries that in the latter years of colonization involved more of an assimilation process of the dominant mestizo group than warfare. A section of forced conversions of Iberians to Islam during the 700 years or so of Muslim rule would be an appropriate addition.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I think it's funny how these verses quoted to prove forced conversion in Islam all preceed or are proceeded by other verses that change the meanings of these verses completely. Here are some examples:
Sura (9:29) - Is this a joke? It clearly states that they, the non-Muslims, had a choice of either paying Jizya, a very payable tax (common knowledge, I'll prove it if you challenge this statement), or leaving the Muslim lands. How is that a forced conversion? Clearly biased, and i'm taking this verse off.
Sura (9:5) - Of course, this looks like a very explicit verse that condones forced conversions, but let's take a look at the verse that comes RIGHT BEFORE this verse, "Sura (9:4) Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him]." [2]
Funny, because it clearly states that the Pagans (polytheists) can easily keep from violent ends by just agreeing to treaties with the Muslims and not going against the Muslims (or supporting the Muslim's enemies). It makes perfect sense, basically, don't try to fight us, and we won't try to fight you. Try to fight us, and we will fight and kill you, or you can convert to Islam. Now, is that really a forced conversion? Sure, if you forget all about the part that stated that you can easily avoid this by just making a treaty and agreeing on not supporting the enemies of the Muslims. I mean, in reality, these Pagans are living in Muslim territory. What more can you ask for?
So I'll be taking off the verse Sura (9:5), too.
Now for the verse Sura (9:12). It refers to "them", but in the verse after, Sura (9:13), it says, "Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers." [3]
This clearly states that the Muslims were attacked first in this quarrel, and when attacked first, you may fight back. Not only are the non-Muslims attacking the Muslims, but these non-Muslims are living in Muslim lands, under Muslim rule and law. Of course, they must either leave the lands or repent and convert to Islam. How can you attack the ruler of a country and expect nothing to happen to you outside of being killed? At least the Muslims give the choice of conversion to their religion. Is this really a forced conversion?
Verse 9:4 and 9:6 states that those who seek peace should not be fought, I clearly edited the page of that, providing proof, but everytime I find someone undoing my edit.-- 82.201.248.102 ( talk) 06:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC) I will continue this later, but before I take these verses off, I would like to see other's comments on my critisism of this bias article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.184.192 ( talk) 02:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the forced conversion is not that big issue at present, it is the law of many Islam country that concern me. Especially those Muslims who wants to converts to other religion. In country like Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi arabia, these behaviour will be sentenced to death! Which in my point of view is the most severe discrimination towards non-muslims! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.117.228.62 ( talk) 15:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Muhammed and his followers never practice forced conversion of the Pagan Arabs during Muhammad's conquest of Arabia.
The fact is that Moham/med was far less kind to Jews. He did force Jews to convert. Moreover, several dozen Jews were beheaded as he and his teenage bride looked on. He vented his anger on a Jewish poet named K'ab bin Al-Ashraf, who, according to the Prophet's first biographer, Ibn Ishaq, "composed amatory verses of an insulting nature about Muslim women." Mohammed asked his followers, "Who is willing to kill K'ab bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle." Mohammed found a volunteer who killed the poet. Afterward, Mohammed issued an order to "kill any Jew that falls into your power." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvdhog100 ( talk • contribs) 10:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Eh, if you want some sort of historical evidence, just look to the founding of the Arabic empire. They basically had a sort of caste system, in which Muslims were up top, Christians and Jews were right below them, then came other non-abrahamic worshipers, and finally slaves. They never forcefully converted anyone, but the fact that there were quite a few benefits to being Muslim during the height of the arabic empire, a very large number of people chose to convert to receive a higher place in society, better trade prospects, etc. There is quite a significant example of no forced conversion.
Even in most modern countries, while they may not be very kind to Jews, some of the mostly Muslim countries have significant Christian populations, such as Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, and a couple others. Generally speaking, they do not receive quite the same rights as Muslims in some cases, but none of them are forced to convert or killed because they are christian, otherwise there wouldn't be any christians living there at all! 50.135.250.142 ( talk) 19:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that threats of the non-worldly type should be included also. For most religious people the threat of eternal damnation is far more "threatening" than worldly torture, or death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.177.194 ( talk) 14:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The comment above was made by me. I decided to make an account so that I can contribute more. ( talk)
I agree that any kind of pressure physical or psychological constitutes force. As such threats of eternal damnation and promises of eternal reward used as incentives to conversion constitute forced conversion. If there are no objection I'll edit the preamble to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.231 ( talk) 14:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no evidence of any discussion of the proposed merger either here or Talk:Religious Intolerance. So the merge tag's being removed. JASpencer 14:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I have a few reservations over this line "The Muslim attitude toward Jews is reflected in various verses throughout the Koran, the holy book of the Islamic faith. "They [the Children of Israel] were consigned to humiliation and wretchedness. They brought the wrath of God upon themselves, and this because they used to deny God's signs and kill His Prophets unjustly and because they disobeyed and were transgressors" (Sura 2:61). According to the Koran, the Jews try to introduce corruption (5:64), have always been disobedient (5:78), and are enemies of Allah, the Prophet and the angels (2:9798)."
Surah 2:61 reads "and remember ye said: 'O Moses! We cannot endure One kind of food (always);So beseech they Lord for us what the earth groweth-it's pot herbs and cucumbers, its garlic lentils and onions' He said 'Will ye exchange the better for the worse? Go ye down to any town and ye shall find what ye want!' They were convered with humiliation and misery; they drew on themselves the wrath of allah. This is because they went on rejecting the signs of allah and slaying his messengers without just cause. This because they rebelled and went on transgressing" To me this verse signifies the view of rebellious children of Israel, not all Jews in general (Moses was a Jew no?) It also completely fails to point out the very next verse which states
Surah 2:62 "Those who believe (in the Qu'ran) and follow the Jewish (scriptures) and the Christians and the Sabians-any who believe in Allah and the last day and work righteousness shall have thier reward with thier lord; on them shall be no fear; nor shall they grieve"
Which undermines the proposed theory
Verse 5:78 reads
5:78 "Curses were pronounced on those among the children of Israel who rejected faith"
I don't think this is trying to say that all Jews are by thier nature disobedient, just that rebellious children of israel were cursed.
Verses 2:97-98 do not even mention Jews.
Also note that this article is on the specific nature of historic conversion to Islam, and whether or not the Qu'ran says that Jews are disobedient or corrupt is irrelevant to the topic, and should instead be included in the Islamic view of Judaism article. I'm removing the statement
The sources for this article are at present nowhere near what is required in Wikipedia. As this is largely a historical article, can I suggest we stick to books and scholarly articles by historians. For the current views of the various religions, books by theologians would also be appropriate. For current allegations of forced conversion, major human rights organisations and/or reliable news sources. Does this meet with everyone's agreement? Itsmejudith 10:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
As for sources, I like Judith's ideas. Claims by politicians are the least encyclopedic and should not be considered "sources" but rather "comments". We might want to have a separate article on the Politics of forced conversion or the Forced conversion controversy, highlighting and summarizing politicians' and activists's views. This relates to the pope's (failed?) attempt in 2006 to start a dialogue on faith and reason. -- Uncle Ed 16:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I found this in a subscription-only website:
Perhaps "forced conversion" is the wrong article to mention this? -- Uncle Ed 21:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the most recent changes to the Islam section, as I believe they where a clear attempt to whitewash these issues against Wikipedias policies regarding neutrality. Unreferenced POV claims such as "The general position in Islam is that forced conversions are not acceptable" should have no place in this article, and misrepresenting sources such as this, http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=34770&ln=eng where Ibn Baaz clearly support forces conversions: "Obliging a person to adhere to the truth in which is guidance and happiness is better for him than falsehood. Just as a person may be forced to do the duty that he owes to other people even if that is by means of imprisonment or beating, so forcing the kaafirs to believe in Allaah alone and enter into the religion of Islam is more important and more essential, because this will lead to their happiness in this world and in the Hereafter." should not have any place in this article either. -- Karl Meier 15:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Karen armstrong's comment is related to forced conversion by the Government and not by the individuals. I am inserting another scholarly opinion over it. If someone thinks that this has to be NPOVed, he/she is most welcome to do so. TruthSpreader reply 18:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
As long as the claim that "nobody in the Islamic empire was forced to accept the Islamic faith" stands, the tag must stay too. This sentence is saying that literally nobody was ever ever ever forced in the Islamic Empire, which means conservatively speaking from Muhammad's death in 632 until the fall of the Caliphate in 1258. And it doesn't say forced by the government or local rulers but forced in general. Is there really anyone who wouldn't call this ridiculous. Str1977 (smile back) 19:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I intend to take out the reference to Ibn Baaz's views because it is to a website that may not be reliable. There is no guarantee of the quality of the translation into English or whether the source is quoted selectively. Ibn Baaz's opinion on forced conversion is notable, however, and a reference could go back in if, for example, a statement by him has been translated by a scholar and published in a book in English. Itsmejudith 18:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem with the Crusades passage is that the Crusades simply were not about converting anyone to anything but about ensuring unhindered access to the Holy places. Some people might suffer from this misconception that the Crusades were about conversions but that doesn't make it true. Str1977 (smile back) 19:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Rather than bandy around assertions, what citations can be provided on this (both directions). -- Nachtrabe 18:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the definition in the intro is wrong. Conversion is the acceptance of a certain religion, not the repudiation of one. One converts to Christianity, to Islam, to Buddhism etc. With forced conversions this is also the objective of the one using force: he wants someone to adopt his religion and not merely make him leave another. The intro should reflect that. Str1977 (smile back) 19:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Rather cherry-picky aren't we? Why not put those lines which tell Muslim armies to protect non-muslims.
The Quran clearly authorizes force in conversion: See Surah's 9:29, 2:193. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.143.42 ( talk) 01:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Not entirely comfortable with that being in the article, and it reeks of WP:NPOV issues. In short, it doesn't come off as neutral - but that's my opinion. Can somebody either clean it up or remove it, please? -- Dennisthe2 16:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Karl Maier can you explain this revert: [5]?
How is the source you are adding in any way a reliable source? Bless sins ( talk) 18:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Is the Islam qa website a reliable source for rulings in Islamic law?
'Islam QA' is definitely not a reliable source, as its format is rather blog-style. That is, quick answers to questions written on the run. It is not an in-depth type of website. The site is basically a forum. The citation used was merely a quick response to "Question #34770" which someone submitted. I think we should only use authoritative sources, not blogs, not forums, and not quick 'question & answer' websites. Thanks, -- Lester 23:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
the issue is not necessarily whether or not the website is reliable (i don't think it is on this article), the issue is why one scholar (presuming the website's attribution to him has been correct) out of literally thousands has been chosen and had his view presented alongside the majority (and academic) view, as if they are of equal prevelance. hence this is a case of undue weight. ITAQALLAH 16:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
IslamQA doesn't look like a reliable source as it's not scholarly and apparently self-published. If the issue isn't the web site's reliablility, what is it, exactly? Leadwind 04:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The article Kein Zwang im Glauben on the German wikipedia on this phrase informs the reader in the introduction paragraph that the verse has been abrogated by classic exegesis and later mentions Sura 9, 73 as an example. How accurate is this claim? -- 84.137.40.109 ( talk) 17:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the short section on Buddhism because it does not describe forced conversion to Buddhism. The only example cited is that of the persecution of Christians in Japan under the Tokugawa Shogunate. This did not involve forced conversion to Buddhism. Rather, the authorities considered the Roman Catholic Church to be a subversive force and therefore suppressed Roman Catholicism. They did not care whether people were Buddhists; they only cared that they were not Catholic. It is therefore an example of religious persecution, but not an example of forced conversion to Buddhism. Bill ( talk) 22:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Please us only reliable soruces in the article. Thereligionofpeace.com is not considered a reliable source. Also don't interpret Qur'anic verses or hadith to make a point, only scholars can do that, not wikipedians. Bless sins ( talk) 20:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The kidnap of two journalists should be under twenty century allegations, not islam, and certainly not both. I have removed it from the islam section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEasyWay8 ( talk • contribs) 19:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Both Bernard Lewis and RS Lal, while decent scholars as far as they go, are also well-known to have political agendas hostile to Islam (for Heaven's sake, Lal is listed on the template for Hindu politics!) and if their work is to be used, a counter weight is necessary. I don't have my actual books with me (which is why I relied on the Cartoon History, which is quite well-sourced but not quite academic-level), but such sources must be found. At the very least, Karen Armstrong's counterarguments to Lewis can be brought to bear. Lockesdonkey ( talk) 18:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The teachings of Islam mainly promote religious tolerance(2:256, 60:8-9, 4:90, 10:99, 18:29, 88:21-22, 8:61, 9:4-6), however, I would like to argue about Sura 9 since It is a very controversial one, and since Its verses are most oftenly cited to prove that Islam does not promote religious tolerance, The Sura promotes that It was all under a state of war, and not of peace (9:4-6, 9:13) - given the above interpretation, It would be simple to find its consistency with other verses like those mentioned above. 196.205.204.151 ( talk) 22:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The article says "In practice, forced conversions have been very common throughout all Islamic history, although it was but rarely official government policy" and cites Lewis and Waines.
Lewis says (on p.95), "Forced conversion of this kind was comparatively rare..."
Waines says (on p.53), "Examples of forced conversions exist, despite the clearest scritpural porhibition, but in any case appear to have been rare."
The "common" appears to have been a typo that radically differs what the authors are trying to say (just as missing "not" in a sentence can have the same effect). Bless sins ( talk) 17:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the following sources are unreliable:
Let me know if you disagree. Bless sins ( talk) 18:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I am from Pakistan and I find the allegation that "[In Pakistan} Around 20 to 25 Hindu girls are abducted every month and converted to Islam forcibly", to be completely preposterous. That is 300 girls a year, and nearly 19,000 girls since the Indo-Pak partition in 1947 (assuming a near constant rate of abduction). Where was this statistic taken from? Who recorded these numbers? Where are the websites with hundreds (if not thousands) of families asking for help (and if no one is asking for help out of fear then how do you know)? Where are the pictures of the abductees? Or ANY of the relevant data? Where is the source? I'm sorry but this is just baseless propaganda quite unbecoming of the standards of Wikipedia.
Also regarding the following line:
"It was reported in February 2007 that Hindu and Sikh organisations in the UK believe that young women of these faiths are being coerced by young men they meet at university into converting to Islam."
Who cares what some religiously motivated organisations believe? Their "belief" cannot be stated as a fact here. Especially considering the next few lines:
"A spokeswoman for the police said: "We are aware of it as an issue that concerns the Hindu community but are not aware, without further research, of any specific incidents reported to police. We would encourage anyone who has been targeted in this way to seek help."
So some religious zealots were getting paranoid, or just looking for limelight and they complained so the local Police department told them "we have no reason to believe you just because you say so, but if it actually happens, you'll get all the help you need" in the most polite and diplomatic way. So what is this incident doing here on the "Forced conversion" page?
And this little gem:
"In October 2009 it was reported that Muslim groups in the Indian state of Kerala have been engaging in a "Love Jihad", whereby Muslim men were trained to seduce college-going Hindu and Christian girls to marry them and forcibly convert to Islam."
Reported by whom? Where are these training camps? Who is training them? The PFI? The Wikipedia page on PFI states quite clearly that those allegations were found to be baseless repeatedly and nothing like "love jihad" existed:
"In late 2009, The Karnataka CID (Criminal Investigation Department) reported that although it was continuing to investigate, it had found no evidence that a "Love Jihad" existed.[55] In late 2009, Director-General of Police Jacob Punnoose reported that although the investigation would continue, there was no evidence of any organsation using men "feigning love" to lure your women to convert to Islam.[56] In early 2010, the State Government reported to the Karnataka High Court that although a large number of young Hindu women had converted to Islam, there was no organized attempt to convince them to do so."
Where are the credible sources and unbiased references that are the hallmark of Wikipedia?
Please fix the above to the regular standards of this website. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.10.113 ( talk) 13:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Can we agree that the following answers are consistent with definition of "forced conversion".
If one is forced to observe religious law, does it equate to forced conversion? Yes.
If one is forced to pretend they have converted, does it equate to forced conversion? Yes.
Is forced conversion from Atheism or Agnosticism to Islam forced conversion? Yes.
If the answers above are correct, then countries that do not practice "Separation of church and state" are by definition practicing forced conversion. This would include many (or most?) predominantly Muslim countries.
Also, we need to address indoctrination of children, and how that relates to forced conversion. Clearly, if children are not given a choice, they are effectively subjected to a process of forced conversion, since children are not born with philosophy and beliefs that are consistent with any specific religious dogma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reasonserved ( talk • contribs) 17:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
This section was removed. It should not have been removed. All of the claims made about conversion under the Hasmonean Empire are given references. If you want to discuss some change to the section then please suggest some change. Please note WP:RNPOV as follows 'Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources' and 'Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view must be mentioned if it can be documented by notable, reliable sources, yet note that there is no contradiction'. Academic opinion is that forced conversion was used in this historical instance. The extent and methods are the subject of historical debate, and that is why I chose a reference that referred to 'expulsion or conversion', and stated that this was either by threats of exile, or threats of death, depending on the source. Do you wish me to add further academic references? How many will suffice? Dalai lama ding dong ( talk) 19:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I have got a lot of information on state atheism and forced conversion of religious subjects which I would like to share unfortunately someone keeps deleting, it is all relevant and sourced so I don't see the problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.251.57 ( talk) 22:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Though atheism itself being a rejection of organised religion has no central structure whereby it has espoused an ideology of forcing people to leave religion, many groups as proponents of atheism have participated in forced conversion such as Communists, as the former president of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev aptly stated, the Soviet communist state carried out a comprehensive “war on religion.” [1] He lamented that the Bolsheviks, his predecessors, even after the civil war ended in the early 1920s, during a time of “peace,” had “continued to tear down churches, arrest clergymen, and destroy them. This was no longer understandable or justifiable. Atheism took rather savage forms in our country at that time. [2] The roots of this hatred and intolerance of religion lie in the essence of communist ideology. Marx dubbed religion the “opiate of the masses,” and opined that, “Communism begins where atheism begins.” [3] Speaking on behalf of the Bolsheviks in his famous October 2, 1920 speech, Lenin stated matter-of-factly: “We do not believe in God.” Lenin insisted that “all worship of a divinity is a necrophilia.” [4]He wrote in a November 1913 letter that “any religious idea, any idea of any God at all, any flirtation even with a God is the most inexpressible foulness … the most dangerous foulness, the most shameful ‘infection.’” James Thrower of the University of Virginia (a Russia scholar and also a translator) says that in this letter the type of “infection” Lenin was referring to was venereal disease. [5] “There can be nothing more abominable than religion,” wrote Lenin in a letter to Maxim Gorky in January 1913. [6] On December 25, 1919, Christmas Day, Comrade Lenin issued the following order, in his own writing: “To put up with ‘Nikola’ [the religious holiday] would be stupid—the entire Cheka must be on the alert to see to it that those who do not show up for work because of ‘Nikola’ are shot.” [7] Under Lenin, this was not an isolated occurrence. Significantly, communists did not merely try to block or halt religious faith but to reverse it. This was particularly true for Romania, even before the Nicolae Ceausescu era. This meant not just forbidding religious practice and jailing ministers and believers but employing torture to force them to renounce their faith. It was not enough to contain, silence, even punish believers in prison; it was decided they must be tortured in truly unimaginably degrading ways to attempt to undo religious faith. [8]
I don't see whats wrong with this, the quotes are origial first hand quotes as an introduction to the subject.
Also why do you constantly undo edit where I delete referenced quote from india 21st century section as its from the 1990's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.255.108 ( talk) 21:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Obviously you did not read the referenced article it states between 1992 and 1995. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.255.108 ( talk) 22:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The article according to reference is from 1995 why is it in the 21st century section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.106.177 ( talk) 12:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC) Bold text
Forced conversion is about forcing an ideology, and state atheism should not be an exception. Of course, state atheism was related to communism and other radical ideologies, but the same we can say about Chrstianity and the european culture, for example, or Islam and Arabian culture. -- Josell2 ( talk) 04:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Nshuks7 ( talk) 17:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Forced conversion was debated between Muslim scholars. And the majority agreed the forced conversion is not allowed. People such as Ibn Tymia, Ibn al-Qaym, and Ibn Uthaimeen. But again the paper is in Arabic. Here-- BelalSaid ( talk) 00:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Roman Catholicism is a form of Christianity, so I edited it right. Asking the difference between Catholics and Christians is like asking the difference between Americans and Humans. Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.255.179 ( talk) 23:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I have a problem with the following According to Sian, the narrative is similar to accusations of " white slavery" lodged against the Jewish community and foreigners to the UK and the US, with the former having ties to anti-semitism that mirror the Islamophobia betrayed by the modern narrative
not only is it not NPOV, it doesn't actually define what 'accusations of white slavery were lodged against the jewish community' what is the definition of the 'foreigners' is. what accusations were lodged against these so called foreigners, what religion were they? Also it doesn't actually add any useful information to the article other than an emotional comparison, this article which is about forced conversions from one religion to another, not sexual abuse and/or prostitution. This quote simply does not belong in the article, it has nothing to do with religion, it could be included in the article on white slavery perhaps
another question to ask, is it widely accepted by academics and society at large that 'islamophobia is the same as historical anti semitism, because thats what this quote claims Coasttrip ( talk) 22:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I decided to remove the section of Islamic quotes. My reasoning:
1. It amounts to original research to just quote scriptures. 2. All religious scripture is hotly contested with many interpretations. 3. Debates over the interpretation of scriptures would need secondary reliable sources. 4. No other religion has its religious scriptures quoted and it's unfair to single out Islam. 5. It's better to just list the known incidents. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 20:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Scripture quotations were again added back, and I removed them. To build a section that is NPOV would have to be "this scholar said this, however this scholar said that". That will take some work. To just quote scripture is WP:OR. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 17:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. This scriptures are important and have a good source.-- 79.192.50.218 ( talk) 22:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
"I disagree. This scriptures are important"
and have a good source
I question the quality of this source:
That is just some website. I don't know if it passes as a WP:RS. I don't know if the translations are accurate, who made it, etc. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 17:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
The secondary sources are: Khan, M. Muhsin. Sahih Bukhari. Peace Vision, 1986; see Ibn 'Umar at Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24
Ahmedov, Aibek. "Religious Minorities and Apostasy in Early Islamic States: Legal and Historical Analysis of Sources." J. Islamic St. Prac. Int'l L. 2 (2006): 1.
Al-Hilali, Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din, and Muhammad Muhsin Khan. Translation of the Meanings of the Noble Quran in the English Language. IslamKotob, 2009; see page 40, translation at footnote 3.
for the first quote and
Mogler, Christian. The Rise of Islam: How could this small religious movement become within centuries the dominant religion of the Mediterranean, and why was Christianity not able to stop it. GRIN Verlag, 2009.
for the second quote. I think this sources are correct.-- 79.192.38.214 ( talk) 15:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore the quotes are from the Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement and are also correct!-- 79.192.38.214 ( talk) 18:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
"The secondary sources are"
No, those just sources that are listing the primary sources. A secondary source would be a historian commenting on particular passages. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 06:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
@ NeilN: Please explain why you removed this: In prior years too, around 25 Hindu girls have been reported to be abducted every month and converted to Islam forcibly in Pakistan, as reported by Pakistani media. [1]- Raam2 ( talk) 20:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Religious convictions are supposedly the acceptance of and believing in certain (unproveable) dogmas. How can somebody be forced to believe something? The words "to force" and "to believe" aren's compatible very much, are they? It's like saying "I really don't believe Santa Klaus ever came down the chimney, but everybody around me was so upset about me not believing that I just had to believe it too." Or recent BBC documentary had such fragment of an interview: "I really like and believe in Christianity, but they threatened me, so that I had to convert." This really implies that there is no belief is really involved, just a mechanical following of some procedure. Asserting the validity of this topic really undermines the validity of the concept involved in it. The whole topic turns into some kind of nonsense. Yurivict ( talk) 03:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
This material does not belong here. It is from Primary sources, and it is Original Research to suggest that it relates to forced conversion.
″Sahih al-Bukhari, for example, describes Muhammed asking his followers,
Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah." — Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:2:25 see also Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:59:643[57][58][59][60]
Sahih Muslim similarly, in Book 19, describes the conquest of mecca where when faced with a group from the Quraish, Muhammed asked his followers,
"You see the ruffians and the lowly followers of the Quraish. And he indicated by striking one of his hands over the other that they should be killed." — Sahih Muslim, 19:4395 see also Sahih Muslim, 1:29 Sahih Muslim, 1:30 Sahih Muslim, 1:31 Sahih Muslim, 1:32 Sahih Muslim, 1:33 Sahih Muslim, 1:34 Sahih Muslim, 1:35 [61]
These quotes do not relate to forced conversion. The subjects are no told that they must convert. They are offered the chance to keep their beliefs. All monotheisms have texts that state that only their G-d shall be worshipped. If we include these general quotes about death to unbelievers then there are large sections of the Hebrew Bible that need to be included as well.
In particular the second quote just says that unbelievers are to be killed. It does NOT say that they are given a choice between conversion and death, or conversion and penalty. The application of separate laws to believers and non believers is not enough to justify the charge of forced conversion. In Israel and Judah there were separate laws for followers of Yahweh and Gentiles. Can I bring them in here, as examples of forced conversion? Does the fact that Atheists were often allowed to stand for public office in Western Europe qualify as forced conversion? If so then I will add it in, as well as the results of polls in the U.S. stating that many voters would not vote for an atheist, as that can fit into this definition of forced conversion. Theredheifer ( talk) 11:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
"I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle"does not let anyone keep their beliefs, and it's most definitely not original research, but well and properly sourced. Thomas.W talk 11:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Making changes to the article to make a point, is disruptive behavior. (see WP:POINT) If you continue on that line and actually try to edit the article in that way, you will face a block or a topic ban. I am ignoring that line of discussion. Please discuss the text you are objecting to. once we have resolved that, if you want to discuss other changes that are not point-y you can do as you will. but you have poisoned the well on adding content from Chronicles. thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 21:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
I have started reading this article and the first thing I notice is that the section (religion and power) starts with the weasel words: "In general, anthropologists have shown" just to later make a lot of strong claims about all religion in general. I don't think such claims should be made without attribution. I suggest attributing all claims to their author(s) or removing them. GreyWinterOwl ( talk) 14:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Forced conversion. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Expand the section on 'Hinduism' by adding more recent information about Hindu group Ghar Wapsi in India, who have been forcibly converting Muslims and Christians across India. (ManFromMohenjodaro 21:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC))
Aurangazeb never made forced conversion to non muslim to convert muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.110.12.166 ( talk) 11:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
"Forced conversion to Atheism"? How does one "convert" to atheism?? This is an absurd use of terminology. It should be changed either to "secularization", "dechristenization" or at the very least "forced irreligion". The current thing makes no sense because you can't force someone not to believe in God, only to not follow certain rituals or spread their faith. Neither of those two is even possible in atheism. Bataaf van Oranje ( talk) 11:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
The cited sources, Marsh and Adappur mention forced conversion, As user @ Anupam: said ″Removing a section because you feel that a university professor has a "misunderstanding" won't fly here″, and the source very clear about that: ″It might be added that the most modern example of forced "conversions" came not from any theocratic state, but from a professedly atheist government — that of the Soviet Union under the Communists″.-- Jobas ( talk) 08:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Atheist section should stay because in USSR some believers were forced to renounce their religious faith and adopt atheist materialist belief system. Here are some citations to support my claim: "A person convinced that he possessed spiritual truth was required to conceal it from his own children! In the twenties the religious education of children was classified as a political crime under Article 58-10 of the Code—in other words, counterrevolutionary propaganda! True, one was still permitted to renounce one's religion at one's trial: it didn't often happen but it nonetheless did happen that the father would renounce his religion and remain at home to raise the children while the mother went to the Solovetsky Islands. (Throughout all those years women manifested great firmness in their faith.) All persons convicted of religious activity received tenners, the longest term then given."- Solzhenitsyn, A. (1974). THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO 1918-1956 An Experiment in Literary Investigation I-II (pp. 37-38) (T. Whitney, Trans.). New York: Harper & Row.
"Efforts were spent on trying to convince clergy to renounce their ordination, sometimes with promises of good jobs, and other times under physical threat. They had nearly 200 successful cases, including a few who joined in the atheistic efforts by contributing to the propaganda brochure My porvali s religiei (We Broke with Religion)."- Christopher Marsh, RELIGION AND THE STATE IN RUSSIA AND CHINA, p. 73 Mr.strangerX ( talk) 20:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Xenophrenic, you're welcome. I attempted to improve the referencing without changing any of the core content but you reverted me. I should note that I attributed the Soviet actions to "Communists", something that I thought you would appreciate. Furthermore, I also acknowledged your comment about the sentence that included a quote from medievalist Sandra Miesel and removed it. I hope that you can understand that I am willing to compromise and accept any valid points you might have. As such, would you be willing to restore the additional sources that I added, as well as the attribution to Communists? If not, I can go ahead and do that as it is evident that editors have provided substantive reasoning to support their inclusion. The section on Atheism has several references from historians, such as Christopher Marsh, Paul Froese, among others (quite unlike other parts of this article). I plan to add more information about how churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. were forcibly converted into Museums of Scientific Atheism. The The Destruction of Memory: Architecture at War by Robert Bevan states that "Churches, synagogues, mosques and monasteries were shut down in the immediate wake of the Revolution. Many were converted to secular uses or Museums of Atheism (antichurches), whitewashed and their fittings removed." This is just one example of a source that I plan to add to the section. Thanks, Anupam Talk 17:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone and CerealKiller Yum. The argument that Xenophrenic is proposing is as Anupam has noted, not really relevant to this page. Whether atheism is a religion or not is not the point of the article. (Even though we have already seen examples of atheism as religion in various forms through Unitarian congregations, Sunday Assembly, North Texas Church of Freethought, First Church of Atheism and its multiple chapters and even research how atheists in America raise their children in light of atheism in "Freethought Denominations" - Atheism, Secularity, The Family, And Children by Christel Manning in Atheism and Secualrity Vol. 1, we can even add more things like almost 30% of atheists from multiple countries engage in prayer [14], other things like books for street promotion of atheism as an ultimate worldview, and perhaps we can include other studies on "convinced atheists" in Europe that have diverse and prevalent supernatural beliefs besides Gods - Atheism And Secularity In The Netherlands by Loek Halman in Atheism and Secualrity Vol. 2). It sure is an interesting world we live in and abstractions of religion and atheism don't seem to do justice to the reality of people's lives. Atheism, just like theism, is both religiously and secularly diverse with variant traditions and manifestations. You said "every atheist you meet will have a different "worldview", but this is universal since every Theist you meet literally will have a different worldview too!! Theists are not uniform in ideas, beliefs, and concepts - that is why Hindus and Muslims and Jews have different worldviews.
Back to the article. There is already a general agreement here among editors that the stuff on the Soviets and French on forced conversion belong in the article because it is clear that even if atheism is seen as not a religion (can be seen easily as a worldview instead - which is what I was proposing we do in chaning the lead to "other worldviews") still engaged in forced conversion of peoples deepest beliefs about reality - this is what the article is about. The active promotion of atheism by the League of the Militant Godless, as opposed to merely nullifying peoples theistic beliefs, surely fits well in the forced conversion article because atheists actively engaged in changing people's ultimate worldviews about reality by force - as is documented in the references provided by Anupam [15]. The sources clearly state this - the quotes are there. The activities by the League of the Militant Godless was not just about attacking other religions, it was about "promoting atheism" and "bringing atheism to the masses" as well. The fact that the League was even made speaks volumes on the fact that the League was not providing merely open and free information to educate people on theism and Christianity or Islam so they can decide for themselves if they should hold these beliefs. There was procession which did lead to repression, which is why once the Soviets went down, non-atheist beliefs went up significantly on surveys on religious identification. The people had been were repressed (Pew Research Center's comments on this increase after the fall of the Soviet Union [16]. This is within the purview of the article.
In terms of Paganism, well it is not a religion and is certainly not a class of religions either see the Patheos library on it [17]. Its etymology shows that even the term "pagan" started to be used from the 14th-15th century with modern usage beginning in the 20th century [18]. It is a modern abstraction for a mish-mash of beliefs and cultures that are not generalizable. Mayan1990 ( talk) 02:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Considering that most editors here are favorable to keeping the stuff (even other editors like Jobas looking at the history of the section), I went ahead and restored the material with a minor change. Please do not revert it since this is the current consensus. You can still talk about it here though to see if there is any need for changes. Mayan1990 ( talk) 03:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Forced conversion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Can we organize this talk page by religion, like the article is? I realize this isn't typical, but I think it would help comments and conversation be more useful. I wouldn't change any of the existing headings, but would add a higher level heading and move content around. Sondra.kinsey ( talk) 13:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I noticed a few opportunities for improvement in the lead to the Islam section. First, it says "Islam explicitly prohibits forced conversion" This talk page, at least, reveals some debate on this. What does "Islam" mean here? Islamic legal tradition? The Koran? Furthermore, this statement then seems to be contradicted a few sentences later, where the article reads "In theory, ... pagans faced a choice between conversion to Islam and fight to the death". I'd appreciate a more knowledgeable editor on this topic clarifying these issues. Sondra.kinsey ( talk) 14:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Forced conversion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Throughout the middle ages Europeans who were not Christian were under constant threat of being enslaved and castrated(if they were male) with jews and Christians being the instigators of the threat and muslims being the recipients of the European slaves . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.100.44.118 ( talk) 15:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Forced conversion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca:8080/RIR_RDI/RIR_RDI.aspx?id=454343&l=eWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Colonial Americas
Whenever there have been conflicts, there’s no doubt that forced conversions have occurred. However the number of forced conversions in Iberian colonies at the beginning of European colonization would’ve have been limited to the native population within and nearby the boundaries of the established colonies. Particularly since most of the warriors that defeated the native empires comprised primarily of other indigenous nations so conversion would not have been something that took place overnight. In the subsequent decades and centuries Old World diseases wiped out a large portion of the indigenous population, including allies, which allowed Westernized biracials, who have outnumbered those of mostly European ancestry early on in the colonization period, to thrive at their expense given that they were less susceptible and vulnerable to those diseases, eventually gaining the ascendancy and gradually absorbed, forcefully or voluntarily, the remaining indigenous population spread over a vast area. Therefore forced conversions would have been restricted to the first few years after the defeat of the indigenous empires. Conversion to Christianity by other indigenous populations all over the region would’ve happened across many decades and centuries that in the latter years of colonization involved more of an assimilation process of the dominant mestizo group than warfare. A section of forced conversions of Iberians to Islam during the 700 years or so of Muslim rule would be an appropriate addition.