Talk:Forced conversion

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 September 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Forced Conversion quotes

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]." [1]

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." [2]

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)

Very nice points. The problem is that historically to my knowledge, these verses have not been applied. Can you name any cases where a treaty has actually been made with unbelievers and actually respected by future Islamic authorities? I don't think so. I think that quoting scriptural authority for various activities and attitudes is a smokescreen in cases like this where the reality in Islamic societies has normally been (and still is) to discriminate against and press conversion on followers of other faiths.--86.26.235.97 (talk) 10:46, 6 April 2010 (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)

Threat categories

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)

I object. Forced conversion means just that: conversion by force. Converting due to being swayed by the threats and promises of the afterlife is not the same at all.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Cuchullain, in that physical force and torture are qualitatively different from "inducements" like the promise of Heaven or Hell. Historically, the phrase "forced conversion" is limited to this context as well and expanding its scope would seem to be original research. Still, anything that leads an editor to create an acount and contribute more is a good thing, so welcome to WP  : ) Doc Tropics 14:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please ...

Why is Wikipedia turning into a war zone between Islamophobes and Muslim apologists ? This article has been edited by people with a serious political agenda ... Isn't it possible to discuss things Islamic objectively ? 62.163.6.54 12:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Hadith: The Prophet peace be upon him says: (The Islam will spread in all places that have day and night). The explanation of the Hadith: This is an amazing prophetic miracle, the Prophet peace be upon him tells us about the rapid spread of Islam and that this religion will cover all parts of the globe. And this is what we will learn through the recent statistics on the number of Muslims all over the world. Islam started 1400 years ago with only one man who is the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him and the number of Muslims today became more than one thousand and four hundred million Muslims!! So what is the secret of this amazing spreading, and what does the global statistics say on the number of Muslims in the world today?

Scientific facts: Today there are more than 4200 religions in the world! The statistics say that Islam is the fastest spreading among all religions in the world! In 1999, the number of Muslims in the world was 1200 million Muslims. But now Islam is spreading in all continents of the world, as the number of Muslims in 1997 in the six continents was: 780 million in Asia, 308 million in Africa, 32 million in Europe, 7 million in America and 385 thousand in Australia. In 1900, the number of Muslims all over the world was less than half the number of Christians but in 2025, the number of Muslims will become greater than the number of Christians because of the significant growth of Islamic religion. And this is the highest rate of growth in the world! The Prophet peace be upon him talked about an amazing prophetic miracle that Islam will spread in all parts of the earth, He peace be upon him says: (The Islam will spread in all places that have day and night). And this means that Islam will reach any area of land that has day and night and this is what really happened as nowadays there are Muslims all over the world. So if we bear in mind that this Hadith has been said by the Prophet peace be upon him at the time when Muslims were weak and few where no one expected that Islam will spread all over the world, we realize the greatness of the miracle. This Hadith came to comfort the believers for their weakness and fewness in number. And if Muhammad peace be upon him wasn't a messenger from Allah, he wouldn't have dared to tell his companions that Islam will spread all over the world, as how could he be sure of that?

The point of inimitability: Therefore we can say that this Hadith is a scientific miracle for the Prophet peace be upon him because we cannot imagine that a man calling for a new religion with only few people believing him can say these words unless he was confident that this religion will not only spread but will be the most widely spread and no one could have this confidence unless he was inspired from God, which means that he is a messenger of Almighty God. And in this fact a reply to all those who claim that the Quran was written by Muhammad peace be upon him because it is impossible for anyone to predict that Islam will spread in this amazing way but God be he exalted told him this to reassure him that this religion will spread in all the places that have day and night.

Removing merge tags

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)

Qu'ranic treatment of Jews

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

Sources

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)

Validity of forced conversion:

A man convinced against his will

Is of the same opinion still

Was it a Christian author who wrote this couplet? --Uncle Ed 16:15, 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)

Thanks for your comments, Uncle Ed. NB that Hornplease has also made helpful contributions on the same lines. Perhaps rather than proceeding straight away to a further article there could be a section here on the controversy, starting with the many points that were made in the mainstream media (West and East). Itsmejudith 18:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I found this in a subscription-only website:

. . . the Quran does not equate jihad with holy war. This interpretation of jihad developed years later after Muhammad’s death when it came to be used by rulers (caliphs) to justify their wars of imperial expansion and rule in the name of Islam. [3]

Perhaps "forced conversion" is the wrong article to mention this? --Uncle Ed 21:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as it stands this is a point for the jihad article. And there is no need to cite this website when the same point is made by many historians.

Which brings me to a point about the sub-section Forced Conversion of Jews in the Islam section. The first paragraph is a very general point not directly relevant to forced conversion. Second paragraph is sourced to Bat Ye'or, who I would argue is not a reliable source for WP purposes. I cannot find any reference anywhere else to this allegation against Harun Al-Rashid. And as Harun Al-Rashid was one of the califs regarded by Muslims as "rightly guided" and by non-Muslims as a civilised and tolerant ruler, it is not a negligible matter. Does anyone reading this have access to the book where Bat Ye'or says this? If so, could you look up what her source is for the statement? Thanks. Itsmejudith 12:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Revert of edits to the Islam section

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)

Please do not accuse editors of "whitewashing". NPOV policy means that the encyclopedia does not state a view either way. I put in the introductory statement because I thought the point was generally accepted by all but if it is disputed then let us not have an introductory statement. See below for my point about Ibn Baaz.Itsmejudith 18:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that I am making a valid point above about the mentioned editing above, and if what is being done is to whitewash the issue according to an Islam apologist point of view, then there is nothing wrong with pointing that out. Also, I don't see why we should remove the introduction because the issue is disputed. It is an important point in itself that the issue is disputed. -- Karl Meier 19:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added some other journal articles, which clearly state that classical stance on forced conversions is that it cannot be done. Though, if Salafis have some other ideas, this definitely deserves space in wikipedia, but should only be given space according to acceptance of that belief in scholarly circles. TruthSpreader^reply 18:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Karen Armstrong's comment

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)

Ibn Baaz reference

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)

If you do that then I intend to revert you on sight. There is no policy that says that all information from website is per definition unreliable, and that we can't use the opinions of famous scholars because it has been published on a website. What should however be taken out is the opinions of Karen Armstrong. She is not a WP:RS and her opinions is irrelevant to a serious Encyclopedia. -- Karl Meier 19:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If someone wants to cite Ibn Baaz, find a reliable source on what he said. Even the most reliable source can't be cited from an unreliable web site. Leadwind 04:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Crusades

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)

Before anyone asks. I deleted it as it was not based in fact. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Str, the Crusades were not simply about any one thing. Wars aren't. Itsmejudith 23:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The crusades had certain objectives - the liberation of Jerusalem, assistance to the Eastern Empire. Conversion of any non-Christians, let alone forced conversion, was not among them. Neither did attempts to convert anyone play any significant role in the Crusades, with the one exception of anti-jewish violance outside of the official crusades. May I also point out that the text had a huge pro-Islam slant when it stated: "The spread of Islam stands in contrast to the actions of the followers of Christianity, who since the time of the Emperor Constantine have made liberal use of the sword" - this basically says that Islamic spread was peaceful while Christians all the time used violence. Obviously, Christians have used violance (and actual examples should be used) but this depiction here turned black into white and vice versa, considering how Jerusalem and other lands first become Muslim (i.e. ruled by Muslims, not Muslim in regard to the population). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather than bandy around assertions, what citations can be provided on this (both directions). --Nachtrabe 18:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Definition

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)

There seems to be another problem too, by having the definition just be someone being "threatened" with negative consequences, it introduces the idea that in a vauge way, even just telling someone that they'd not go to heaven in some manner without being an adherant of the religion would amount to a forced conversion. This would apply to most of the world's religions, even eastern ones with reincarnation often propose that without living like an adherant of their religion, you'll be turned into a blade of grass or something in your "next life" or whatever and not enter Nirvana and all that jazz. While the range given does seem to perhaps exclude this possiblity, many religions would propose that you are dying in another way worse than normal death by dying without being a member of that religion. This introduction seems highly open to mis-interpretation, where did it come from anyway? Homestarmy 19:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. It should be amended to be restricted to "worldly" consequences. Any suggestions how to put this.

The current version was written by yours truly after I had posted here. The former version, about which I complained can be seen in the history. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Koran quotes

Rather cherry-picky aren't we? Why not put those lines which tell Muslim armies to protect non-muslims.

As I understand it, pretty much all of those lines are from earlier parts of the Qu'ran and abrogated by later verses, or are themselves abrogated by different popular interpretations of the Hadiths. Homestarmy 15:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Current muslim stuff

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)

The bottom half seems well-referenced, but the top half...well...not so much :/. Homestarmy 19:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Took out the unsourced allegations and cleaned up the sourced ones to reflect sources accurately. A careful check needs to be kept that only allegations reported in the mainstream press or by neutral NGOs are mentioned. Itsmejudith 18:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with the references in the top half?Bless sins 21:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Karl Maier can you explain this revert:[4]?

How is the source you are adding in any way a reliable source?Bless sins (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC Islam-qa website

Is the Islam qa website a reliable source for rulings in Islamic law?

Response from Lester

'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)

Response from (involved) Itaqallah

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)

It is true that the issue of WP:Undue weight comes into this. We should state what the prevailing view of the religion as a whole believes. The dominant / major viewpoint. In any religion, you can always find some scholar in some country who's opinion is different from the majority. However, this would be a minority viewpoint. For example, the recently inserted information says "Some Muslim scholars believe that Islam forbids forced conversion", which would not be accurate if the majority viewpoint in Islam is against forced conversion. Similarly, it then stated "Other scholars such as Shaykh Ibn Baaz, however, reject this idea", which is also not balanced, as it uses the plural "scholars" while only citing a single scholar, and it is worded in present tense when the only scholar cited is not alive any more, and therefore of the past. So the majority viewpoint is what represents Islam today, not a minority opinion from the past.--Lester 20:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Response from leadwind

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)

"No compulsion in religion"

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)

Buddhism

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)

Unreliable sources

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)

NPOV in Islam section

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)

Teachings on forced conversion in Islam

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)

"common" forced conversions

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)

Unreliable sources

I think the following sources are unreliable:

• Goel, Sita (1993). Tipu Sultan: villain or hero? : an anthology. Voice of India. p. 38. ISBN 9788185990088. http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=TYMYTPfXCse0rAf8-62tCg.
• Sharma, Hari (1991). The real Tipu: a brief history of Tipu Sultan. Rishi publications. p. 112. http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=TYMYTPfXCse0rAf8-62tCg.
• Purushottam. Must India go Islamic?. P.S. Yog.

Let me know if you disagree.Bless sins (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Absence of citations and weasel words

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)

"Forced to convert" vs "Forced to observe"

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)

Judaism

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)

State atheism

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)

Copying and pasting large amounts of text from one article to another is discouraged, even if you've made some changes to the text. Describing state atheism as a forced conversion is original research (see WP:OR) unless you have sources which frame state atheism explicitly in this way. State Atheism may have some connection with forced conversion, but at most, this article should include a paragraph mentioning the connection with sources describing how they are related. The two terms are not synonymous, and inclusion of numerous examples of state atheism is unhelpful and pushing your point of view (POV) to excess. Dialectric (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

State Atheism

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.” 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. 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.” 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.”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. “There can be nothing more abominable than religion,” wrote Lenin in a letter to Maxim Gorky in January 1913. 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.” 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.

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)

Removing the content entirely is a spurious solution, as there is another section for Islam-related incidents to which the content could just as easily be moved. Also, one of the citations for that content dates from 2000. On the subject of state atheism, as already stated, unless a source specifically mentions both forced conversion and atheism or forced conversion and communism, conflating those subjects is original research and/or synthesis, which are not permissible in wikipedia. Dialectric (talk) 21:43, 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)

India 21century forced conversion

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

State atheism should be here

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)

I have removed your edit since you use a source that is specifically about samizdat movements in the Soviet Union until 1980 to present generalised claims on forced conversions by state atheism. Rewrite to reflect the specific geographical and historical subject presented in the source or find a better source instead. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Please stop editwarring over this. You haven't changed anything in your latest edit, so the problems of misrepresentation of the source is still relevant. Also your edit summary stating that the edit is "appropiate for the ideological balance of this page" suggests you are not adhering to a neutral point of view. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

<is "appropiate for the ideological balance of this page" suggests you are not adhering to a neutral point of view. > No, in fact I'm trying to bring more neutrality. --Josell2 (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As I stated above, in September, a source must specifically mention both forced conversion and atheism or forced conversion and communism to be included in this article. The sources you have provided do not do this. State atheism may be included as a 'see also' item, but it should not be treated as equivalent to forced conversion without reliable sources. Dialectric (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The text of forced irreligious ideolgoies is based on references and should be included as part of the historical events of state atheism and left ideologies. Of course, most of the refernces are based on the Sovietic Union, and so? That's a good example of state atheism and forced ideologies, so it should be at least mentioned in this article. -- --Josell2 (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Mi intention is not to manipulate or corrupt this article, but to enrich it. I think we can agree in a midpoint instead undoing each other's editions. However, I don't think that reference are a problem. Also, a section on dorced irreligion can be useful to keep the article as neutral as possible. --Josell2 (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The article "Protest for Religious Rights in the USSR: Characteristics and Consequences", David Kowalewski, Russian Review, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Oct., 1980), pp. 426–441 is about samizdat protest movements in the Soviet Union until 1980. Its subject is very specific and the author does not at any point make any generalising claims about state atheism and that states in general that "imposed irreligious views in some way were related to ideologies like marxism and communism", neither does he mention North Korea. The claim that "State atheism began to be practiced through history since the French revolution to the 20th century" is also rightly being challenged in the very first sentence in the other source linked, it says: "The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion". This source also does not provide any generalised claims that support the statement "State atheism is the official promotion and approval of atheism by the state, sometimes combined with active suppression of religious freedom and practice" after which it is being cited. The citations are thus completely detached in content from the statements being made in the edit, and at best it constitutes original research. When you make specific claims in an edit, you will need sources that contains those specific claims, not just some random sources that you think constitutes examples of your specific claim. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

However, that's not a reason to delete the whole paragraph. State athism and communism is a historical fact and it prayed the role of religion in the URSS, and later in North Korea, which now is a Cult of personality. Also, the new reference I added is from the Library of the Congress. It's not just a random reference. --Of course, it need more references, but we can say the same about the section on Christianity.--Josell2 (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Forced conversion in Islam

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)