Board index ‹ Islam

[Draft]

After Exodus did Egypt change their religion? and from what I have read Egypt was later on in history conquered and then became an Islamic country like I find it so interesting that all of that happened and then the majority ended up muslim. Were people forced to convert? Or the conquerors like flood the country enough to eventually over time have the majority of the population be muslim and have Christians/Jewish people move elsewhere? Or is there similarity between the quran and the bible that people believing in Islam was not a big deal? (I have not read the quran so I don't really know what it entails)

[jimwalton]

> After Exodus did Egypt change their religion?

No. I am not aware of ANY evidence to support this idea.

> and from what I have read Egypt was later on in history conquered and then became an Islamic country

True, but that was close to 2000 years later, after the Exodus.

> Were people forced to convert?

This was generally the case during the Islamic conquest: Convert or die.

> Or is there similarity between the quran and the bible that people believing in Islam was not a big deal?

There are really not many similarities between the Qur'an and the Bible. In the Qur'an, NOT believing is a HUGE deal. According to Craig Evans and Jeremiah Johnson, 64% of the contents of the Qur’an is driven by the question of what to do with Kafir: unbelievers (not just defined as those unaccepting of Islam, but as “evil, disgusting, and the lowest form of life”). The Kafir have no human or civil rights. Any non-Muslim can be killed, sold into slavery, sexually abused, raped, mistreated, dismembered, or mutiliated.

In total there are over 100 verses in the Qur’an enjoining Muslims to fight, kill, torture, rape, pillage, and conquer in the name of Allah against the Kafir. Surah 2.190-196, 216; 4.89, 91; 5.33-35; 6.45; 8.39; 9.5; 33.60; 40.35; 47.4; 66.9.

[Nick at Night]

This is a great example of how cherry-picking passages confirms us in our pre-established false understandings.

The Quran was given through Mohammed in a time when monotheism was considered a new revelation among many pagans and idol worshippers. Most of the people converted to this new way of life (worship of the One True God) because of the Quran, and the conflict came from people rebelling against Monotheism (i.e. The Truth from Scriptures). The question of what to do with Kafir's was important because Kafir's were conspiring and creating conflict in an attempt to destroy Mohammed and what he was teaching.

Also, these teachings were specific to this conflict and the spread of this revelation. Anyone who uses them to justify mistreating non-believers is also cherry-picking specific truths and calling them eternal truths (with no authority to do so). You don't know what you are talking about, honestly. Look at Surah 2:190-196 which you use to support your argument;

And fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not commit aggression; God does not love the aggressors.

And kill them wherever you overtake them, and expel them from where they had expelled you. Oppression is more serious than murder. But do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque, unless they fight you there. If they fight you, then kill them. Such is the retribution of the disbelievers.

But if they cease, then God is Forgiving and Merciful.

And fight them until there is no oppression, and worship becomes devoted to God alone. But if they cease, then let there be no hostility except against the oppressors.

Additionally, how do the things you point out differ from how God instructed Israel to destroy the Canaanites when they went into the land of Canaan?

[jimwalton]

> The Quran was given through Mohammed in a time when monotheism was considered a new revelation among many pagans and idol worshippers.

This is patently and provably untrue. Christianity had spread widely through the Roman Empire, and including eastward. Monotheism had been around for close to 2 millennia, even in the Arabian region.

> Surah 2:190-196

You forgot to bold Surah 2.191: And slay them where you catch them. This is no defensive battle, but a hunting down to kill. And then the end of the verse applies only to the Sacred Mosque, not in general.

And verse 193: And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. In other words, fight and kill until all are Muslim.

Verse 194 shows that it is a Muslim's right to take revenge against infidel aggression.

And you have ignored all the other verses I sent, which are only a small representation of the whole. I have not been unfair at all.

> Most of the people converted to this new way of life (worship of the One True God) because of the Quran, and the conflict came from people rebelling against Monotheism (i.e. The Truth from Scriptures).

This is pure historical revisionism. The barbarism of the Islamic armies during the conquest is legend. And the "convert or die" is common historical knowledge.

> The question of what to do with Kafir's was important because Kafir's were conspiring and creating conflict in an attempt to destroy Mohammed and what he was teaching.

This is more theological and historical revisionism. Did Islamic armies invade city after city, and eventually Europe and Egypt defensively? It's an outrageously false claim.

> Additionally, how do the things you point out differ from how God instructed Israel to destroy the Canaanites when they went into the land of Canaan?

God instructed the Israelites to drive the Canaanites from the land (Ex. 23.28, 30, 31; 33.2; 34.11, 24; Lev. 20.23; Num. 22.6, etc. etc. etc.) The point was not to kill but rather to drive out. And when the Canaanites were driven from the land, that was the end of Israelite battle. They were not to have any other land; they were not to conquer any other peoples. From there, Israel fought defensive battles, not offensive, land-grabbing ones. It's a totally different picture of the Islamic invasion of the Middle East, Europe, and northern Africa that sought to create an empire by aggression and violence.

[Nick at Night]

When the LORD your God brings you into the land which you go to possess, and has cast out many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than you, and when the LORD your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them. Nor shall you make marriages with them. You shall not give your daughter to their son, nor take their daughter for your son. For they will turn your sons away from following Me, to serve other gods; so the anger of the LORD will be aroused against you and destroy you suddenly. But thus you shall deal with them: you shall destroy their altars, and break down their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images, and burn their carved images with fire. "For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth. (Deuteronomy 7)

Or the Amalekites, for example;

Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. (1 Samuel 15)

Or even these words from Paul about unbelievers in Corinthians;

Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols?

Nope, seems like you are the only one focusing on what you call differences to confirm what you are willing to accept came from God.

Also, you seem to be primarily referring to the conquests that occurred after Mohammed died. Again, the justification of further violence from the prophecies given to Mohammed would be misuse of the prophecies. This is something Israel and Judah were also guilty of (the self-pride of receiving the covenant).

[jimwalton]

> Deuteronomy 7

Yes, of course I'm familiar with this text. You can see that the text starts with assumption that the people were to be driven out, not genocided.
Secondly, what most people don't realize, presumably yourself included, is that the rhetoric of "destroy them completely" was ancient warfare rhetoric that meant "win a decisive battle." It didn't mean "kill them all." Allow me to show you some evidence.

• Egypt’s Tuthmosis III (later 15th c.) boasted that “the numerous army of Mitanni was overthrown within the hour, annihilated totally, like those (now) not existent.” In fact, Mitanni’s forces lived on to fight in the 15th and 14th centuries BC. There was no annihilation. No “totally." Just rhetoric for "we won a decisive victory."
• Hittite king Mursilli II (who ruled from 1322-1295 BC) recorded making “Mt. Asharpaya empty (of humanity)” and the “mountains of Tarikarimu empty (of humanity).” It just wasn’t true. It’s warfare rhetoric.
• The “Bulletin” of Ramses II tells of Egypt’s less-than-spectacular victories in Syria (1274 BC). Nevertheless, he announces that he slew “the entire force” of the Hittites, indeed “all the chiefs of all the countries,” disregarding the “millions of foreigners,” which he considered “chaff.” Not true.
• In the Merneptah Stele (c. 1230-1208 BC), Rameses II’s son Merneptah announced, “Israel is wasted, his seed is not,” another premature declaration. This sounds like he was killing all the children. It just wasn’t so. Israel was around for six more centuries—but this is the way they talked.
• Moab’s king Mesha (840/830 BC) bragged that the Northern Kingdom of “Israel has utterly perished for always,” which was over a century premature. The Israelites were still around for the Assyrians to devastate in a century later, in 722 BC.
• The Assyrian ruler Sennacherib (701-681 BC) used similar hyperbole: “The soldiers of Hirimme, dangerous enemies, I cut down with the sword; and not one escaped.” Yeah, I don’t believe a word of it. What they’re saying is that they won decisively.

So you see, there is no genocide going on. They are not "destroying them totally." They won the battle, and this is their rhetoric. You'll notice that in Dt. 7, after God tells them to "utterly destroy" the Canaanites, He says that after that they shouldn't make any treaties with them or intermarry with them. Wait a minute...aren't they all dead? Ha. Nope. "Kill 'em all" was a purge of their idolatry (v. 5), not physical slaughter. Even Deuteronomy 7.22 says this will happen a little at a time, not with one great genocidal slaughter. They will be driven out over the course of decades or even centuries. No genocide happened here.

> The Amalekites, 1 Sam. 15

Same story. The Amalekites were a large nomadic group scattered over thousands of square miles. But Saul accomplished his military task in one night (v. 12). And he did it by hiding in a ravine. What he is conquering is a city. There is no genocide going on. The Amalekites were a people group for about 1000 years after this event.

> 2 Corinthians 6.14-17

Correct. The point is not to let yourself be drawn into sinful behaviors by virtue of your relationships. We need to let nothing sidetrack us from our calling and our walk. No stumbling blocks. Endure Hardship. Our relationships have great spiritual import. We shape our lives according to the influences we choose to surround ourselves with. Paul is saying we should not allow ourselves to be influenced by ungodliness. Good words.

> Also, you seem to be primarily referring to the conquests that occurred after Mohammed died.

Mohammed led armies in conquest, and after he died the effort was continued. He was an aggressive and violent military leader, not just fighting defensive battles but fighting battles of conquest. So then Islamic armies after him sought to establish an empire and conquer the world to force Islam on many people groups.

> This is something Israel and Judah were also guilty of (the self-pride of receiving the covenant).

I have no idea what this has to do with the violent military conquest of Mohammed and of the islamic armies for centuries after Mohammad.