Where in the Qur'an does it say to hurt/kill nonMuslims?

[JerryL]

Did you not read the whole thing I posted? You are not to be go killing them willynilly unless they start it. That´s why I posted the whole verse and notes explaining it. It´s like reading one sentence of an American History textbook and expecting to pass the test on what you know from that one sentence.

I did read it, and it does not say that.

For those who "start it" have violated their alliance and may be attacked now. Those who do not "start it", and with whom you have an alliance, you must wait until the alliance ends.

This is ridiculous, you zero into one sentence and ignore the rest of them that explain it.

You are misapplying the verse. To say that this was discussing the aggressors (who have broken alliance) would disqualify the need to wait until the alliance was over to attack them (9:4).

I´m sorry, where does it read convert them. I can listen to things and still not believe them.

The part where they must hear the word of Allah and spread it, and the part where they are assumed to have not heard it in the first place. There are some other passages more directly on point of war and conversion if you wish to also have that discussion.

I was clearing up history because you were posted about it.

No. I did not. I asked what standard you would use.

There is poor behaviour in the name of very religion. Why single out just one?

Only one is being discussed here. Having a discussion about everything all at once would be beyond my ability; so I'm discussing the topic at hand... Qurannic commands to hurt/kill nonMuslims.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

jamaesi and Jensa--

This semester I took a course on world history up to 1500, with a focus on the emergence of Islam. I would like to give you my perspective on this issue based on what I have learned. I'd like to add that I have developed a deep respect for the fascinating and complex religion of Islam.

First of all, let me just say that all religions evolve. As they do so, evolving morals, beliefs, etc. are often projected onto past authorities. This certainly isn't a bad thing, either: it's good that people adapt their religions to changing knowledge/values. Also, it is important to look at Scripture in the context of history, and realize that human authors writing about events which occurred decades earlier are capable of fabrication and bias.

We must keep in mind that Islam is somewhat unique in that the emergence of this new faith coincided with the emergence of a political empire which would weaken the Byzantine Empire and conquer the Sasanid Empire in Persia (and, eventually, become one of the largest Empires in human history). This explosive expansion, first in the Arabian peninsula and later throughout Persia and North Africa, was fueled not by merely fighting back against aggressors, but also by actively campaigning to dominate other peoples. Muhammad and his followers, and later Muhammad's successors, embarked on a campaign of military conquest, as many groups do when they achieve the power to do so (the ancient Israelites supposedly did it in the Bible, the Christians did it, etc).

So it makes sense that, decades later, Muslims writing about these conflicts will portray their enemies (Jewish and Pagan groups) as barbaric, treacherous, evil, etc. It also makes sense that the Qu'ran might seem contradictory at times, since the early Muslims had varyingly peaceful/hostile relations with various other groups. We have to remember that this was a time when there was no real distinction between politics and religion; thus, when Muhammad calls his followers to kill the Jews or the Pagans without mercy, it is during a time of conflict with certain groups.

Does the Qu'ran say to hurt/kill nonMuslims? Yes. But we must look at it in its historical context. A military commander during the American Revolution would probably tell his followers to kill the British. But that commander is not necessarily saying that all future generations of Americans should kill the British, indiscriminantly and no matter what peace offerings are made. What is clear in the Qu'ran is a call to dominate, perhaps mercifully, but to dominate nonetheless. Modern day Muslims are by no means constrained to believe this, of course--their religion is allowed to evolve from what it once was just as all religions are.

 

[JerryL]

Mr.Spinkles

This sounds very reasonable. The problem arises when someone holds the heart-felt belief that a given text is from God. As a philosophical or legal document, it's easy for as secularist to shrug and say "different times". Certainly, the constitution's failure to include women and end slavery is something we attribute to the time when it was written (and later ammended).

It would be horrible indeed to never change our laws, and to run the US by the rules of 1776; and yet that's what a religious fundamentalist does. He holds the text to be completely good and completely perfect. Context can be used to understand what a text means, but you cannot change the message because the times have changed.

Islam, for example, was pretty progressive in its treatment of women... for the time. By modern standards it's rather opressive. When this happens in secular law, we update the law; but no one will be updating the Quran... and it will continue to be held as an unwavering standard.

It's common practice among theists to simply ignore the parts they don't like (much as Muslims who believe / want to portray Islam as peaceful ignore or "reinterprete" this section); but that's exactly the road that leads to the emergence of fundamentalism. Had the enlightenment tossed the Bible rather than picked-and-chosen, we wouldn't have "abstinance only" sex ed and idiots getting elected because "they are good Christians". Similarly, if the Muslims threw out the Quran as an "interesting historical document", that would be fine; but by having moderates continue to believe and teach that it's unassailable truth; it's relatively simple to offer a different interpretation (often, just a plain reading) and end up with the Taliban.

 

[TashaN]

For those who "start it" have violated their alliance and may be attacked now. Those who do not "start it", and with whom you have an alliance, you must wait until the alliance ends.

You are misapplying the verse. To say that this was discussing the aggressors (who have broken alliance) would disqualify the need to wait until the alliance was over to attack them (9:4).

The problem is that when someone keep in mind that no matter what is the truth s/he is right so that would not help to understand the issue. Moreover, you never noticed what Peace and jamaesi were trying to point out that you don't have the right to take some verses out of context as you did so.

009.013
YUSUFALI: Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!
PICKTHAL: Will ye not fight a folk who broke their solemn pledges, and purposed to drive out the messenger and did attack you first? What! Fear ye them? Now Allah hath more right that ye should fear Him, if ye are believers
SHAKIR: What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers.

in this verse it's so clear that God is telling us the reason why Muslims had to fight the pagans at that time. This is verse number 13 which explained all verses before it. Islam is always peace and sometimes force had to be done to maintain peace so that's why they gave them time to leave even though they were bothering Muslims before that, making them suffer, getting them out of thier own home, fighting them, killing them and bothering the Messenger of God and his family.

Quran is not a history book nor scince book , etc but it contains all what we need to live all together in happiness and peace in all the time. The most dangerous thing is when someone came saying, Oh !! see ... Allah said kill the pagans !!! before he even know that God meant the pagan for example at that place and at that particular time who did horrible things to the Muslims.

 

[JerryL]

in this verse it's so clear that God is telling us the reason why Muslims had to fight the pagans at that time. This is verse number 13 which explained all verses before it. Islam is always peace and sometimes force had to be done to maintain peace so that's why they gave them time to leave even though they were bothering Muslims before that, making them suffer, getting them out of thier own home, fighting them, killing them and bothering the Messenger of God and his family.

The passage also discusses those who attack you. The part I quoted discusses those "who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you". These people are obviously not attacking.

Quran is not a history book nor scince book , etc but it contains all what we need to live all together in happiness and peace in all the time. The most dangerous thing is when someone came saying, Oh !! see ... Allah said kill the pagans !!! before he even know that God meant the pagan for example at that place and at that particular time who did horrible things to the Muslims.

The one's who had entered into an alliance, not failed you, and not aided your enemies... those horrible things?

 

[Ryan2065]

The passage also discusses those who attack you. The part I quoted discusses those "who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you". These people are obviously not attacking.

So you are getting bashed up over a passage that says you have the right to protect any treaties that you make and you have the right to go after anyone who aids your enemies? (hint hint, if they aid your enemies, that is just like they are fighting you) Also, they would not have gotten very far if their enemies knew that any treaty they made could be broken at any time and their "bible" said they were not allowed to attack to uphold the treaty.

 

[JerryL]

So you are getting bashed up over a passage that says you have the right to protect any treaties that you make and you have the right to go after anyone who aids your enemies? (hint hint, if they aid your enemies, that is just like they are fighting you) Also, they would not have gotten very far if their enemies knew that any treaty they made could be broken at any time and their "bible" said they were not allowed to attack to uphold the treaty.

The passage discsses two groups of people:
1. Those who are your enemies, have aided yuor enemies, or are not holding to their part of an alliance. Attacke them now.
2. Those who are not your enemies, have not aided your enemies, and have held true to their allians with you. Wait until the months of alliance are over, then kill them.

It's a very clear passage. I'm not sure where you are getting these odd interpretations from
.
Section 9, from the beginning.
9.1 You don't have to follow the treaties you made with non-Muslims.
9.3 Tell them you are free from treaties and they will be doomed if they do not convert.
9.4 On second thought, keep alliances with non-Muslims who have been true to them.
9.5 Until the alliance expires. Then, even though they've done nothig to you, kill them all.

Who are they? (9.4) "Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you."
What should be done with them? (9.5) "when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war);"

Section 9 also discusses others, but I'm talking about those discussed in 9.4 and 9.5.

 

[Ryan2065]

9.5 Until the alliance expires. Then, even though they've done nothig to you, kill them all.

For one, in a debate like this, when you distort what is actually said you lose alot of credibility.

If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

From what you said it seems like they were ordered to comit genocide.

From what I understand, the OP was asking about current calls to kill non-muslims. If you want to go to acts that Allah commanded the Muslims to do, we can start pulling out acts that God commanded the Jews and Christians to do...

 

[Ryan2065]

JerryL, can you honestly say that America would not do the same as Islam if what jamaesi said was happening actually happened?

These Pagans the Qur'an talks about aren't exactly the most tolerant and wonderful bunch- they used to bury their female children alive just because of their gender.

In todays society, what do you think America would do if they found another country openly practiced this act and it got on the news? There would be a public outcry for us to go over there and put a stop to this immediatly. Anyone who surrendered and promised to not do it again would be let go right?

If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

To me this is not exactly a very bad thing... Nothing on par yet with what other countries/religions have done in the past.

 

[JerryL]

For one, in a debate like this, when you distort what is actually said you lose alot of credibility.

Are you admitting that you are distorting the passage? What you quoted is verbatim from the Quran (in fact, from a translation chosen by one of my opponents on this discussion).

From what you said it seems like they were ordered to comit genocide.

Does seem that way, doesn't it. If I understand the context, they were indeed being told to remove all non-Muslims from the holyland around Mecca.

From what I understand, the OP was asking about current calls to kill non-muslims. If you want to go to acts that Allah commanded the Muslims to do, we can start pulling out acts that God commanded the Jews and Christians to do...

He asked for a Quranic command ordering to hurt/kill non-Muslims. If he has a more specific criteria, he's welcome to clarify (or simply filter out responses that are not useful to what he ment). I provided a Qruanic command to kill non-Muslims.

JerryL, can you honestly say that America would not do the same as Islam if what jamaesi said was happening actually happened?

Would America kill all non-Muslims? Unlikely at present as we are not particularly Muslim.

In todays society, what do you think America would do if they found another country openly practiced this act and it got on the news? There would be a public outcry for us to go over there and put a stop to this immediatly.

China does it, they have favored-nation status. What does this have to do with the discussion?

Are you saying that 1.Every pagan group around Mecca buried their female children and 2. A good solution to this is to commit genocide on them?

To me this is not exactly a very bad thing... Nothing on par yet with what other countries/religions have done in the past.

I didn't assert it as bad or good. It simply is. The Muslims are required to accept former enemies who convert to Islam. That appears in several places in the Quran.

 

[A. Leaf]

Same commandment (Muhammed and Christ):
Love thy neighbour (LOVE THE INTELLIGENCE OF LIFE)

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Ryan-- Atrocities committed by Pagans in the Qu'ran are probably fabrications written decades after the purported events to justify Islamic expansion. Remember, history is written by the victor. Although it seems clear that Pagan tribal elites persecuted the early Muslim community, the rapid expansion and domination of the entire Arabian peninsula and beyond indicates a campaign of conquest, not just self-defense.

 

[Ryan2065]

Are you admitting that you are distorting the passage? What you quoted is verbatim from the Quran (in fact, from a translation chosen by one of my opponents on this discussion).

If you would like to use the word genocide, make sure you use it in its right contex, I will explain the right context later in this post. You say that they were ordered to kill all non-Muslims, but then they were also ordered to take prisioner anyone who wanted to be a prisioner. Namely if they wanted to fight, then kill them (ie they fight you, you kill them) if they wanted to be prisioner and listen to their teachings, then they were allowed to take them in and then let them go. They do not even have to convert, just listen to the teachings, if they do not accept the teachings, they apparently are allowed to go, as long as they do not taunt the Muslims for their faith. If they do, they are to be killed.

Does seem that way, doesn't it. If I understand the context, they were indeed being told to remove all non-Muslims from the holyland around Mecca.

Again you are distoring the passage. They were to remove the pagans, not all non-Muslims. Pagan has a very narrow translation from what has been mentioned in this thread.

He asked for a Quranic command ordering to hurt/kill non-Muslims. If he has a more specific criteria, he's welcome to clarify (or simply filter out responses that are not useful to what he ment). I provided a Qruanic command to kill non-Muslims.

Again, the command was to kill pagans... I think you need to look up what pagan means... Last I heard it doesn't mean "All people other than the ones in your religion."

Would America kill all non-Muslims? Unlikely at present as we are not particularly Muslim.

Good way to twist around the words. I asked would America step in if a nation was buring their female children?

China does it, they have favored-nation status. What does this have to do with the discussion?

They bury their children alive? Earlier in this thread you asked someone for proof of something "subjective" and I thought that was quite low of you. Now I am happy that I get to ask you... "Please prove the statement 'The Chinese bury their female children alive.'"

Are you saying that 1.Every pagan group around Mecca buried their female children

I am saying from the information presented this is a practice that the "pagan" groups practiced. Unless of course you know more about Islam than the Islam members... If so, please back up your idea with proof that there were pagan groups around Mecca that did not bury their female children, or did not do atrocities similar to that.

2. A good solution to this is to commit genocide on them?

Actually, yes... Or do you assert that burying female children is a good thing and should stay? Genocide means the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. They were "destroying" this group by trying their best to convert people, or killing those that did not want to listen to what they had to say. Or do you say that a society that was taught to bury females alive is a society to keep?

I didn't assert it as bad or good. It simply is. The Muslims are required to accept former enemies who convert to Islam. That appears in several places in the Quran.

The muslims are required to accept former enemies who listen to them, they do not need to convert to Islam. At least that is the message that is given in the passages presented.

Ryan-- Atrocities committed by Pagans in the Qu'ran are probably fabrications written decades after the purported events to justify Islamic expansion. Remember, history is written by the victor. Although it seems clear that Pagan tribal elites persecuted the early Muslim community, the rapid expansion and domination of the entire Arabian peninsula and beyond indicates a campaign of conquest, not just self-defense.

http://www.muslimheritage.com/uploads/Little Known Tolerance.pdf
On page 16 they talk about the "pagans" in the pre-Islam era burying their own female babies. It is not a stretch of the imagination to believe that there would be a society out there that buried some of their female babies. The only evidence presented agrees that the pagans buried their young, to dismiss it because of its source is pretty wrong. I do understand that history is written by the victor, but there is enough evidence to suggest that the pagans did bury their children.

 

[JerryL]

If you would like to use the word genocide, make sure you use it in its right contex, I will explain the right context later in this post. You say that they were ordered to kill all non-Muslims, but then they were also ordered to take prisioner anyone who wanted to be a prisioner. Namely if they wanted to fight, then kill them (ie they fight you, you kill them) if they wanted to be prisioner and listen to their teachings, then they were allowed to take them in and then let them go. They do not even have to convert, just listen to the teachings, if they do not accept the teachings, they apparently are allowed to go, as long as they do not taunt the Muslims for their faith. If they do, they are to be killed.

1. Genocide was your word, not mine.
2. The requirement to offer sanctuary, if asked, is specifically attached to the statement that they had not heard the word. It's not clear to me in the passage whether conversion was required or not (though, if the did not convert, they would still be on the "kill them all" list; so even droping them and leaving them, they would be killed next time)

Again you are distoring the passage. They were to remove the pagans, not all non-Muslims. Pagan has a very narrow translation from what has been mentioned in this thread.

It might be arguable that Jews and Christians were exempt from the slaughter. I'm willing to debate that if you would like to support it.

Certainly the requirement for cohabitation included paying the tax to Allah. It seems to me it required at least lip-service to being muslim; but I'm happy to discuss that. Perhaps we should start a thread on that topic.

Again, the command was to kill pagans... I think you need to look up what pagan means... Last I heard it doesn't mean "All people other than the ones in your religion."

Looking up the English word would not be useful (BTW, it's also translated as "idoloters" which, under Muslim beliefs, Christians would be).

Good way to twist around the words. I asked would America step in if a nation was buring their female children?

And I asked what the point was. The answer is "No, we did not, unless you count granting 'favored nation' status counts as 'stepping in'".

They bury their children alive? Earlier in this thread you asked someone for proof of something "subjective" and I thought that was quite low of you. Now I am happy that I get to ask you... "Please prove the statement 'The Chinese bury their female children alive.'"

http://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.html

Are you going to argue that it's important that "buried alive" might not be the preferred method? Which is the crime? The infanticide or the method?

Also, what does this have to do with the Quran and the command in 9 to kill idoloters wherever you find them?

I am saying from the information presented this is a practice that the "pagan" groups practiced. Unless of course you know more about Islam than the Islam members... If so, please back up your idea with proof that there were pagan groups around Mecca that did not bury their female children, or did not do atrocities similar to that.

So "every Pagan everywhere buried their female children alive unless I can prove to you otherwise"? With that standard, no wonder you can't manage a plain reading.

Actually, yes... Or do you assert that burying female children is a good thing and should stay? Genocide means the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. They were "destroying" this group by trying their best to convert people, or killing those that did not want to listen to what they had to say. Or do you say that a society that was taught to bury females alive is a society to keep?

I'm not really interested in your soap-box of destruction of cultures... you are veering very far from the passage:

"when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war);"
​

"Slay Pagans" doesn't sound like "overthrow their government" to me. Recall that the infants in question would be pagans.

The muslims are required to accept former enemies who listen to them, they do not need to convert to Islam. At least that is the message that is given in the passages presented.

It's not clear to me whether they must convert. There are other passages which would cover this and I'm happy to discuss it with you on an appropriate topic. It is clear in this passage that it applies only to those "who do not know".

On page 16 they talk about the "pagans" in the pre-Islam era burying their own female babies. It is not a stretch of the imagination to believe that there would be a society out there that buried some of their female babies. The only evidence presented agrees that the pagans buried their young, to dismiss it because of its source is pretty wrong. I do understand that history is written by the victor, but there is enough evidence to suggest that the pagans did bury their children.

You find plausable, a history writen by the conquerers, that every other culture throughout the Arabian pennesulia was burying babies?

You think this is the justification for wiping them out? Then why doesn't the Quran mention it as justification? Find me quranic support for your claim and I can at least believe that was the asserted reason.

 

[almifkhar]

jerry l, i simply have a question. did you get this from the holy quran or from hadiths? cause there is a world of difference between them.

 

[Ryan2065]

1. Genocide was your word, not mine.

I asked if you were describing Genocide and you responded...

Does seem that way, doesn't it. If I understand the context, they were indeed being told to remove all non-Muslims from the holyland around Mecca.

2. The requirement to offer sanctuary, if asked, is specifically attached to the statement that they had not heard the word. It's not clear to me in the passage whether conversion was required or not (though, if the did not convert, they would still be on the "kill them all" list; so even droping them and leaving them, they would be killed next time)

I was not aware that nations were in the practice of "conquering" lands more than once... Why would one need to conquer a land after they already conquered it? It would be like the north attacking the south again in the US... the war is over...

It might be arguable that Jews and Christians were exempt from the slaughter. I'm willing to debate that if you would like to support it.

It has already been supported.... Or did you forget the earlier post?

002.062
YUSUFALI: Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Looking up the English word would not be useful (BTW, it's also translated as "idoloters" which, under Muslim beliefs, Christians would be).

You are the one who suggests that it means "All people who are not Muslim." I have submitted the english translation of pagan as my evidence... You suggest that this word is not the right translation, so please, post evidence of what the word really means. A good source would be the origional writings in the origional language and showing what the origional word means.

Are you going to argue that it's important that "buried alive" might not be the preferred method? Which is the crime? The infanticide or the method?

The difference between being buried alive and just killed outright is a little different... The outcome is the same but the way you get there is pretty bad.

Also, what does this have to do with the Quran and the command in 9 to kill idoloters wherever you find them?

Seeing as the "pagans" as we were told is in reference to the pagans in the area who were reported to bury their female children alive, i'd say it has alot to do with why arms were called up against them.

So "every Pagan everywhere buried their female children alive unless I can prove to you otherwise"? With that standard, no wonder you can't manage a plain reading.

Not ever pagan... As stated, pagan group, and you are insulting my reading skills? I presented evidence that the pagan groups in the area practiced barbaric deeds such as burying female children alive. You apparently believe that they all did not do this but have presented no evidence for your position.

I'm not really interested in your soap-box of destruction of cultures... you are veering very far from the passage:

"when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war);"
​

"Slay Pagans" doesn't sound like "overthrow their government" to me. Recall that the infants in question would be pagans.

Yes, this passage says that when the treaties end, make war with them again. This seems to be a war against their morals (burying children alive) so what they want the soldiers to do is kill the pagan that will not listen to their values. Also, how exactly is this on topic? You have posted this passage to show that Muslims are called to kill all non-Muslims, and I am pretty sure I have already shown that A. pagans does not refer to all non-Muslims, and B. that this is not an outstanding order for Muslims to follow today, because it refered to the pagans that were around at that time.

You find plausable, a history writen by the conquerers, that every other culture throughout the Arabian pennesulia was burying babies?

Nope, as stated, the pagan cultures. Not every one =)

You think this is the justification for wiping them out? Then why doesn't the Quran mention it as justification? Find me quranic support for your claim and I can at least believe that was the asserted reason.

I have already stated that they were not to wipe them out (them being people) but to wipe the pagan practices out. Things back then were done with force, and you still have not shown how this passage shows that Muslims of today are called to kill all non-Muslims...

 

[Mr Spinkles]

http://www.muslimheritage.com/uploa...20Tolerance.pdf
On page 16 they talk about the "pagans" in the pre-Islam era burying their own female babies. It is not a stretch of the imagination to believe that there would be a society out there that buried some of their female babies. The only evidence presented agrees that the pagans buried their young, to dismiss it because of its source is pretty wrong. I do understand that history is written by the victor, but there is enough evidence to suggest that the pagans did bury their children.

I followed your link, but what I encountered were claims, not evidence.

 

[Ryan2065]

I followed your link, but did what I encountered were claims, not evidence.

The claims were made by this guy R. Bosworth Smith and it was pulled from a lecture he gave to the Royal Institute of Great Britain... As far as I know people who lecture at Institutes such as that usually lecture on something there is some evidence for... But lets find some more evidence for you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_infanticide

Female infanticide was also an accepted practice among the Arabs before Islam.

I dont really know what exactly you are looking for here in terms of evidence? History that is this old is usually found in books... Historians seem to believe that the Arabs before Islam practiced female infanticide...

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I dont really know what exactly you are looking for here in terms of evidence? History that is this old is usually found in books... Historians seem to believe that the Arabs before Islam practiced female infanticide...

I stand corrected!

I still stand by what I said, however, that "the rapid expansion and domination of the entire Arabian peninsula and beyond indicates a campaign of conquest, not just self-defense." Nor am I convinced that all pagan groups, throughout Arabia and beyond, practiced female infanticide, nor do I believe that that was the sole reason for conquest and the subsequent persecution of those pagans who did.

 

[Ryan2065]

I still stand by what I said, however, that "the rapid expansion and domination of the entire Arabian peninsula and beyond indicates a campaign of conquest, not just self-defense."

This I agree with, but the thing is, how many nations that are around today have not had some sort of campaign of conquest?

Nor am I convinced that all pagan groups, throughout Arabia and beyond, practiced female infanticide

Right, but how could Islam know about pagan groups "beyond" ? Also, while I would agree that it is hard to imagine that all pagan groups practiced female infanticide through Arabia, it would seem a great number of them did because historians are so ready to group pre-Islam Arabia people in the female infanticide group. Though now that I re-read it, it only says that they were tolerant of female infanticide... So while probably not everyone actually did this, they apparently did not question it.

nor do I believe that that was the sole reason for conquest and the subsequent persecution of those pagans who did.

I more think the female infanticide thing was the reason Islam was so harsh on the pagans. It is my impression that, while they did conquer other cities by non-pagan groups, they were not as harsh on those occupitants as they were on the pagan groups.

The Horde that invaded Russia was Muslim (I am pretty sure they converted to Islam before they invaded Russia) and they would attack Russian cities and just destroy these cities. But one province of Russia basically told the Horde that they would submit to their rule and the Horde did not attack these Russians at all and even let them keep everything pretty much the same. It would seem to go with what these passages say about Islam..