No compulsion in religion?

format_quote Originally Posted by jd7

Did Moses teach the Hebrews that there was no compulsion in religion?

Nope.

Were the Hebrews ever instructed to purge themselves of those who not of the same faith?

Yes, repeatedly*. The Bible is the only religious text I know of that actually commands genocide:

Deuteronomy 20:16
But as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihilate them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—just as the Lord your God has commanded, so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and you thus sin against the Lord your God.

In addition to this law, the book of Joshua is essentially a celebratory description of a string of genocides, in conquest of the so-called holy land. Genocides were also commanded, and celebrated, throughout the rest of the Deuteronomistic histories.

In addition to ethnic cleansing, the Bible also contains the following law:

Deuteronomy 13:6
If anyone secretly entices you—even if it is your brother, your father’s son or your mother’s son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend—saying, ‘Let us go and worship other gods’, whom neither you nor your ancestors have known, any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other, you must not yield to or heed any such persons. Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them. But you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Stone them to death for trying to turn you away from the Lord your God.

However, Islam also punishes apostates with death, so the Bible is not unique in this respect.

Were there ever threats of punishment for the Hebrew people if they didn’t purge themselves of other faiths?

See the law immediately above. Also, Yahweh yells at/sends wrath upon leaders who fail to complete their genocides in the Dt. histories. For example, Judges 2:1. Saul is also rejected by Yahweh for failing to commit complete genocide against the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15).

*For the record, I don't think "Moses" instructed the Hebrews to do anything, because I don't think Moses actually existed. The priests and military leaders who likely wrote these books of the Bible, on the other hand....

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia

I am sure a Jewish atheist will come along to offer a fair balanced reply..

cheers

Wow, nice call!

Except I don't really think of myself as Jewish. Though others do, for some ridiculous reason involving magic blood.

As for the thread title: I understand that the Quran says there is "no compulsion in religion." And yet dhimmi who are conquered by the Muslims are required to pay a poll tax and are treated as second-class citizens, unless they convert. This seems like cognitive dissonance to me.

I would certainly rather "convert" to Islam than be treated as a dhimmi.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia

Saved no matter what.. how can you go wrong?
and you get a small portion of tapestry in the Baroque- threads of Splendor at the met.. what is not to love?

I had to Google this and I still have no idea what you're talking about. Care to explain?

Eh beats cognitive conservatism any day?

Was this a dig at me? I'm not much of a fan of either. Though of course I recognize the evolutionary value of both.

I Think a small jizyah is better than half my salary to welfare on ingrates who misuse it anyway..especially that the price is I don't have to go to war when my country is under siege..

I fail to see how your comparison is at all valid. I believe we had this discussion before as well.

Also, you would not be called into warfare even if you weren't a dhimmi. You're a woman.

I find it odd many people complain about jizya in a hypthetical Muslim state, which is actully to be abolished at a certain point (too expansive for me to delve into here) yet are happily disgorging massive amount of money to dead beats and to fund governmental wars in hopes of globalization?

The issue is not with the concept of taxation. The issue is that there are two classes, dhimmis and Muslims. Muslims pay no taxes, only zakat, which redistributes their wealth among themselves. Dhimmis pay taxes to the engorgement of the ruling class, and receive no wealth redistribution in return.

There are other inequalities as well, as I'm sure you're aware: restrictions on dhimmis' religion; dhimmis cannot testify against Muslims in court; dhimmis cannot own weapons (iirc), etc.

Let me ask you a question. Let's say you, a Muslim, live in America in 2009 and Mike Huckabee has just won the general election. One day, police officers knock on your door. They inform you that, unless you convert to Christianity, you are no longer allowed to proselytize or vote, and you have to pay even more taxes (to make up for taxes that Christians no longer have to pay in the new system). Also, you must wear special clothing that marks you as Muslim, and you cannot testify against Christians in court. Only by converting to Christianity could you receive the benefits of the United States government (though on the upside your sons/husband cannot be drafted).

How would you feel about this situation? Would you say the American government was "compelling" you to convert to Christianity? I would.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia

Eh beats cognitive conservatism any day? I Think a small jizyah is better than half my salary to welfare on ingrates who misuse it anyway..especially that the price is I don't have to go to war when my country is under siege..

I find it odd many people complain about jizya in a hypthetical Muslim state, which is actully to be abolished at a certain point (too expansive for me to delve into here) yet are happily disgorging massive amount of money to dead beats and to fund governmental wars in hopes of globalization?


cheers

Are you assuming everyone on state assistance is a "deadbeat?"

And can you please explain jizya and the Muslim state you refer to?

Thanks!:sunny:

No compulsion in religion?

Well it all depends on how you define things.
Compulsion 1. force: a force that makes somebody do something.
So Technically, compulsion to pay more tax is not a compulsion to convert.
It sure is an incentive but it isn't compulsion.
Given the choice of loosing your head or converting is not compulsion. You have free choice. Again, I surly conceder it an incentive but it is not compulsion.
Keeping in mind the definition of compulsion, being forced to be a second class citizen is not compulsion either.
Being deprived of a vote, denied access to many jobs is not compulsion.

But of course only those who are totally devoted to there religion will not convert, if in name only.

But to be sure there is "No compulsion in religion", just strong incentives.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia

Maybe in a parallel universe? it is very valid you don't like jizyah in an imaginary state that has dissolved a hundred years ago, I don't like paying tax now modern day!

Again, not a valid comparison. You pay the same tax everyone else does (relative to wealth). Jizya is a tax paid by only one class of people, to a ruling class of people.

Women can participate in warefare, ever heard of Om omara or khwala bint al'azwar?

No, but I didn't say women couldn't participate in warfare, I said you would not be drafted into warfare. Do you dispute this?

There is zakat and there is sadaqa a Muslim can and often does pay more than zakat money to non-muslims, the way I donate to st.Jude and not consider it part of my zakat.

So? Non-zakat charity (to non-Muslims) is not obligatory. I'm not sure why you even brought this up.

people can and have taken from state fund in an islamic state to foster their own business and ideas, certainly wasn't restricted to its Muslim inhabitants only!

Dhimmis could dip into the caliphate's coffers to finance their businesses? Support for this claim, please?

Says who? a jewish man stole the sword of Ali ibn abi talib, even though the sword bore Ali's name, the Muslims judge still ruled in the Jew's favor on the account that there were no witnessess.. I think you are just making stuff up as you go along?

You're going to have to elaborate on how this story means dhimmis were legally allowed to own weapons under the caliphate.

This is an asinine hypothetical if you'll forgive me, I don't already care to vote as this isn't an Islamic state so it wouldn't matter which of the two evils gets my ballot. and I never proselytize as I couldn't care less what becomes of you.. everyone has a head on their shoulder and can reason through life (I hope).. I pay more than the average american by virtue of my job and single status, and I believe I already wear very modest clothing so it doesn't bother me in the least!

read above and in the end know, I am free to roam where my heart pleases, I reckon if I weren't too terribly happy in a place I can just pack and leave, although an Islamic state is nothing as grossly horrible as what you have just described but just for the sake of playing along!

Wonderful. It's nice to know that Muslims like you would not resist or complain at all when deprived of their rights and treated as second-class citizens. I should call Israel up and tell them that they should just treat the Palestinians like the Jewish equivalent of dhimmis and all would be well in the middle east.

Thanks for the insights. Mostly I am trying to understand the diametrically opposed points of views. Compulsion to no compulsion, the idea of no compulsion seems to be found in both Islam and Christianity yet both have common origins in the "Law" (compulsion).

format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum

Well it all depends on how you define things.
Compulsion 1. force: a force that makes somebody do something.
So Technically, compulsion to pay more tax is not a compulsion to convert.
It sure is an incentive but it isn't compulsion.
Given the choice of loosing your head or converting is not compulsion. You have free choice. Again, I surly conceder it an incentive but it is not compulsion.
Keeping in mind the definition of compulsion, being forced to be a second class citizen is not compulsion either.
Being deprived of a vote, denied access to many jobs is not compulsion.

But of course only those who are totally devoted to there religion will not convert, if in name only.

But to be sure there is "No compulsion in religion", just strong incentives.

This doesn't make sense to me. Under your definition of compulsion, it's impossible to compel anyone to do anything.

Someone could strap you to a table and torture you until you agreed that there is no god but Allah. But since you always would have the choice of "continue to be tortured," it's not really compulsion? That doesn't make sense.

format_quote Originally Posted by jd7

Thanks for the insights. Mostly I am trying to understand the diametrically opposed points of views. Compulsion to no compulsion, the idea of no compulsion seems to be found in both Islam and Christianity yet both have common origins in the "Law" (compulsion).

If you're referring to Jewish Law, unbelievers are not compelled to convert to Judaism. They are either killed outright or enslaved.

I believe the slaves were circumsized, though, and war captive women could be "married" (i.e raped) and thus become Jews by proxy, though I'm not sure if they'd be considered true Jews.

This is just from the Torah, though, which considers Judaism to be a tribal identity ("the chosen people"). I imagine there is a long history of conversion rituals in the Talmud and Mishnah, of which I am less familiar.

Wilberhum “Keeping in mind the definition of compulsion”.

You bring up an interesting point.

What constitutes compulsion? Is it only the threat of death, or can it be something less? If so, what? If not, why?

Qingu, what I find interesting is that Christianity and Islam both claim common ancestry, compulsion (Jewish Law), yet one group prescribes a simple shunning for apostates and the other prescribes death.