Talk:Forced conversion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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.

Please do prove it. I'm interested.FiddlersFingers (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)FiddlersFingers

Sura (9:5) - Of course, this looks like a very explicit verse that condones forced conversions, but let's take a look at the verse that comes RIGHT BEFORE this verse, "Sura (9:4) Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him]." [2]

Funny, because it clearly states that the Pagans (polytheists) can easily keep from violent ends by just agreeing to treaties with the Muslims and not going against the Muslims (or supporting the Muslim's enemies). It makes perfect sense, basically, don't try to fight us, and we won't try to fight you. Try to fight us, and we will fight and kill you, or you can convert to Islam. Now, is that really a forced conversion? Sure, if you forget all about the part that stated that you can easily avoid this by just making a treaty and agreeing on not supporting the enemies of the Muslims. I mean, in reality, these Pagans are living in Muslim territory. What more can you ask for?

So I'll be taking off the verse Sura (9:5), too.

I note that it says to "complete for them their treaty until their term has ended" This seems to imply that the protection is over after the time specified in the treaty has run out. It is also worth noting that forcing someone to convert as punishment for a crime is still forced conversion. It's not simply, "push this button and we'll give you a choice," it's "don't step across this line and we won't make you choose." Stepping across the line, that is to say fighting people who are Muslim or forming an alliance with people who are enemies of Muslims, may not be religiously motivated. It could be a matter of money or trade. Again, even if a person did commit a religiously motivated crime against Muslims, a choice between death and conversion is still a forced conversion.FiddlersFingers (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)FiddlersFingers

Now for the verse Sura (9:12). It refers to "them", but in the verse after, Sura (9:13), it says, "Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers." [3]

This clearly states that the Muslims were attacked first in this quarrel, and when attacked first, you may fight back. Not only are the non-Muslims attacking the Muslims, but these non-Muslims are living in Muslim lands, under Muslim rule and law. Of course, they must either leave the lands or repent and convert to Islam. How can you attack the ruler of a country and expect nothing to happen to you outside of being killed? At least the Muslims give the choice of conversion to their religion. Is this really a forced conversion?

Yes, actually. It may be preferable to death, but it is still a forced conversion, because coercion in the form of threats (whether justified or not) was applied. FiddlersFingers (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)FiddlersFingers

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)

Muhammed and his followers never practice forced conversion of the Pagan Arabs during Muhammad's conquest of Arabia.

The fact is that Moham/med was far less kind to Jews. He did force Jews to convert. Moreover, several dozen Jews were beheaded as he and his teenage bride looked on. He vented his anger on a Jewish poet named K'ab bin Al-Ashraf, who, according to the Prophet's first biographer, Ibn Ishaq, "composed amatory verses of an insulting nature about Muslim women." Mohammed asked his followers, "Who is willing to kill K'ab bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle." Mohammed found a volunteer who killed the poet. Afterward, Mohammed issued an order to "kill any Jew that falls into your power." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvdhog100 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

That's very neat, but we have no way of verifying if that's just hearsay because you don't say where you know it from--you don't cite. Could you provide a link, or at least a title and author for us to take to the library?FiddlersFingers (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)FiddlersFingers

Eh, if you want some sort of historical evidence, just look to the founding of the Arabic empire. They basically had a sort of caste system, in which Muslims were up top, Christians and Jews were right below them, then came other non-abrahamic worshipers, and finally slaves. They never forcefully converted anyone, but the fact that there were quite a few benefits to being Muslim during the height of the arabic empire, a very large number of people chose to convert to receive a higher place in society, better trade prospects, etc. There is quite a significant example of no forced conversion.

Even in most modern countries, while they may not be very kind to Jews, some of the mostly Muslim countries have significant Christian populations, such as Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, and a couple others. Generally speaking, they do not receive quite the same rights as Muslims in some cases, but none of them are forced to convert or killed because they are christian, otherwise there wouldn't be any christians living there at all! 50.135.250.142 (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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. [4]

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)

Salafis agree that forced conversions are not allowed. Ibn Baaz is not the only Salafi. Ibn Taymia, Ibn Al Qym and Ibn Uthaimeen agreed that they are forbidden. So you have to present all views.--BelalSaid (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2012 (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:[5]?

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)

I've just gone through this section in the wake of a bot's not very intelligent attempt to fill out the googlebook citations. I'm concerned that virtually the entire section appears to be based on googling and what partial access this gives to the books cited, rather than a proper study of those sources. This is just to alert other editors that this section, I suspect, needs a lot more work to be well-rooted in its alleged sources rather than an impressionistic and inevitably partial skim via Google. Alfietucker (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2014 (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)

I come to read about Forced Conversions in Islam. Why do you want me to read about forced atheism? Irrelevant. Remove.

Nshuks7 (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because wikipedia was not written only for you.Josell2 (talk) 07:04, 20 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)

Roman Catholicism is Christianity

Roman Catholicism is a form of Christianity, so I edited it right. Asking the difference between Catholics and Christians is like asking the difference between Americans and Humans. Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.255.179 (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Changed Roman Catholicism so it is a subsection of the very meagre Christianity section instead, anticipating informative sections of the major Christian denominations (not exactly a lack of examples throughout history). --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Comparing allegations of forced conversions to accusations of white slavery

I have a problem with the following According to Sian, the narrative is similar to accusations of "white slavery" lodged against the Jewish community and foreigners to the UK and the US, with the former having ties to anti-semitism that mirror the Islamophobia betrayed by the modern narrative

not only is it not NPOV, it doesn't actually define what 'accusations of white slavery were lodged against the jewish community' what is the definition of the 'foreigners' is. what accusations were lodged against these so called foreigners, what religion were they? Also it doesn't actually add any useful information to the article other than an emotional comparison, this article which is about forced conversions from one religion to another, not sexual abuse and/or prostitution. This quote simply does not belong in the article, it has nothing to do with religion, it could be included in the article on white slavery perhaps

another question to ask, is it widely accepted by academics and society at large that 'islamophobia is the same as historical anti semitism, because thats what this quote claims Coasttrip (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It is hardly NPOV. It's from a peer reviewed academic study. Which means more than one person has reviewed it. In fact tens of people review such articles and if they didn't find a problem with it, then that means there isn't a problem with it. You may want to raise these questions with the author and other academic circles, but given that it is scholarly opinion backed up by evidence makes it entirely true and relevant for inclusion. Jews are a religious group too, as are Muslims. So the comparison is again correct. This is not a forum to discuss the content of references, particularly from reliable sources. Scholarly opinion deserves inclusion. NarSakSasLee (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

"foreigners to the UK and the US" seems fairly clear to me - people who are foreign. :) It's okay to have opinions in articles - WP:NPOV is about neutralizing our own opinions, not denying others theirs. From that policy, "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias." The sentence makes clear that this is Sian's perspective. I think what you may be overlooking based on your modification of the material is the point of Sian's studies. It isn't specifically about refuting the existence of the phenomenon (although she does that), but explaining what motivates these concerns. Look at the last sentence in the article abstract: "By examining the construction and manifestation of this narrative, this paper will explore the question of Islamophobia to explain why such a sensational account composed of ‘villains and victims’ or ‘friends and enemies’ has remained so prominent within the Sikh diasporic community." (And, clearly, this is about forced conversion from one religion to another. The title of the paper is "‘Forced’ conversions in the British Sikh diaspora". The title of the book is Unsettling Sikh and Muslim Conflict: Mistaken Identities, Forced Conversions.) --Moonriddengirl^(talk) 12:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Concur with Moonriddengirl. NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)::

moonriddengirl, where is the article on wikipedia about the 'foreigners' being accused of forced conversions and/or white slavery in the United Kingdom? aren't many Muslims also foreigners (and thus fall under your very definition) the opinion is clearly uncertain and problematic to the casual reader Coasttrip (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

If there isn't such an article, Coastrip, you're very welcome to write one. :) In terms of your question "aren't many Muslims also foreigners" - that seems a bit speculative to me, but the entire article is online if you would like to review it to see it clears up your confusion. It makes perfect sense to me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not suggesting Muslims are 'foreign' I meant you didn't provide a real definition, I notice you linked to foreign the onus of proof is on the author to provide a definition of 'foreign' (who is it? non whites? non christians? eastern european immigrants? african immigrants? children of immigrants? illegal aliens?) since you couldn't actually provide one from the publications authored by Sian, I'm guessing she didnt provide a definition, if foreigners are accused of crimes similar to claims of islamists force conversions, some specific details must be provided, its not clear to the reader, maybe the word 'immigrants' would be better used

for example if Sian had stated 'italian immigrants were often accused of white slavery in the U.S in the early part of the 20th century' that would be an clear description of what she meant by foreigner ( that is my own original research definition, although the italian mafia in the U.S did engage in white slavery) Coasttrip (talk) 04:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Concur with Moonriddengirl again. You should actually read the piece to clear up your confusion. NarSakSasLee (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

That would seem to be the best approach. The source is linked. Sian uses the word "foreigners", but if she clarifies further in the paper, that would seem to be the best place to find out. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand Coasttrip's confusion. During the "white slavery" panics - in England in the late 19th century, in the US in the very early 20th, there was a non-specific and unfounded fear about foreigners (and more specifically Jews). That is what Sian is referring to. There is no need to be more specific and indeed we should not try to interpret her, that would be original research. I can't see a problem. Dougweller (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

'That is what Sian is referring to' The way I read your message dougweller, is that there must be volumes of research about this historical issue you refer to (there was a non-specific and unfounded fear about foreigners), so where is the article about this issue on wikipedia since it is prominently referred in your favored quote, the absence of further information on this particular topic is puzzling

Also I think the xenophobia about immigrants and anti semitism in the US and Europe are not the same thing but sometimes overlapped (many jews to the U.S were also immigrants) the quote should be clear about the definition of foreigners however Coasttrip (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This is starting to be tendentious. I have no favored quote, and there is a lot of material about the "white slavery panic" if you research it. There were novels, plays and films written about it, all of which you would have discovered if you had done a simple search. And no, the quote does not need to be clear about the definition of foreigners, we cannot add material that isn't directly in the original. If you really think this source does not meet our criteria at WP:RS, take it to WP:RSN, but please don't keep saying the same thing over and over here. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I say favored (which has no negative connotation) only because I thought you opposed changes to the section, am I wrong to assume this (based on your editing history)?

obviously there is information about the white slavery issue, but I am not disputing that only how it relates to the 'foreigner' issue, there is a difference between accusations of white slavery and a more generalist claim you made there was a non-specific and unfounded fear about foreigners the way the section currently reads it seems likes the word immigrants is what the person who added this section actually meant to say, also I am not promoting an original research definition of 'foreigner' that is why I asked if Sian had defined it in her publications since as it reads currently it is not clear who the 'foreigners to the UK and the US' are, especially when you consider large scale immigration to the UK only occurred in the later half of the 20th century, so who would the foreigners be before that? Coasttrip (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Foreigners to the UK and the US would be, by standard definition, anyone who is from a foreign country or place, and so long as the UK and the US have existed there have been those. The concept wasn't born in the later half of the 20th century...French people in 1700 were as foreign to the US as French people in 2013 are.

"so where is the article about this issue on wikipedia" - any editor can write any article, and if you feel like information on this subject is missing on Wikipdia, by all means, as I said above, you are welcome to write it. Straight Dope would not be a source I'd use for an article like this, but might provide interesting background reading to get you started: [6]. I would recommend Google books--my favorite starting point for research. A few promising leads that you actually could use: [7] ("Furthermore, the white women of England, Ireland and America were particularly alluring to 'foreign' men who craved racial difference" - mind you, the book is discussing the panic, and it does not claim this actually occurred). [8]: "From the late 19th century until the aftermath of World War I, and especially in the years just before the war, fears about white slavery coalesced into a moral panic, a widespread anxious conviction that white women and girls were being abducted in large numbers into an international sexual traffic...." There are plenty more sources that discuss this panic, if you'd like to do the research and write about it. Of course, you can also simply request it at WP:RA. Either way, it's immaterial to the subject whether there's an article about it on Wikipedia or not. This is why we have the "otherstuff" guidance for deletion discussions - Wikipedia is not finished: "Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Equally, because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they are missing before they are created, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should."

Beyond that, if you want to know more about what Sian said, including if she more strictly defined "foreigner", you can read the paper. It's linked. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You are trying to add original research here by mingling you're un-scholarly beliefs with her scholarly research. NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Removed quotes from Islamic scripture

I decided to remove the section of Islamic quotes. My reasoning:

1. It amounts to original research to just quote scriptures. 2. All religious scripture is hotly contested with many interpretations. 3. Debates over the interpretation of scriptures would need secondary reliable sources. 4. No other religion has its religious scriptures quoted and it's unfair to single out Islam. 5. It's better to just list the known incidents. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Scripture quotations were again added back, and I removed them. To build a section that is NPOV would have to be "this scholar said this, however this scholar said that". That will take some work. To just quote scripture is WP:OR. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. This scriptures are important and have a good source.--79.192.50.218 (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

"I disagree. This scriptures are important"

According to you. But Wikipedia is not about personal opinions, regardless of how strongly they are. That amounts to Original research. Secondary sources are needed to establish the notability of the sections. And we must follow WP:NPOV and summarize the views in a debate. As there is a debate about whether Islamic theology condones or forbids this.

and have a good source

I question the quality of this source:

• http://www.hadithcollection.com/sahihmuslim

That is just some website. I don't know if it passes as a WP:RS. I don't know if the translations are accurate, who made it, etc. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The secondary sources are: Khan, M. Muhsin. Sahih Bukhari. Peace Vision, 1986; see Ibn 'Umar at Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24

Ahmedov, Aibek. "Religious Minorities and Apostasy in Early Islamic States: Legal and Historical Analysis of Sources." J. Islamic St. Prac. Int'l L. 2 (2006): 1.

Al-Hilali, Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din, and Muhammad Muhsin Khan. Translation of the Meanings of the Noble Quran in the English Language. IslamKotob, 2009; see page 40, translation at footnote 3.

for the first quote and

Mogler, Christian. The Rise of Islam: How could this small religious movement become within centuries the dominant religion of the Mediterranean, and why was Christianity not able to stop it. GRIN Verlag, 2009.

for the second quote. I think this sources are correct.--79.192.38.214 (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore the quotes are from the Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement and are also correct!--79.192.38.214 (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Some of those would pass WP:RS probably. Not that Hadith website though. However, the main point is that it still constitutes WP:OR to just quote religious scripture. Remember: "Your opinion, and mine, are unimportant. What is important is sourcing." That's not WP policy, but a quote that I feel sums up WP views well.

A WP:NPOV section would have to quote relevant scholars in this debate. There is no such thing as a quote from religious scripture without interpretation. We would then need high quality historians and academics discussing these passages. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

"The secondary sources are"

No, those just sources that are listing the primary sources. A secondary source would be a historian commenting on particular passages. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of a sentence with a source

@NeilN: Please explain why you removed this: In prior years too, around 25 Hindu girls have been reported to be abducted every month and converted to Islam forcibly in Pakistan, as reported by Pakistani media.-Raam2 (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

One newspaper is reporting on the claims of one person who hedges with, "There is no official record to support this statement..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Isn't the subject an oxymoron?

Religious convictions are supposedly the acceptance of and believing in certain (unproveable) dogmas. How can somebody be forced to believe something? The words "to force" and "to believe" aren's compatible very much, are they? It's like saying "I really don't believe Santa Klaus ever came down the chimney, but everybody around me was so upset about me not believing that I just had to believe it too." Or recent BBC documentary had such fragment of an interview: "I really like and believe in Christianity, but they threatened me, so that I had to convert." This really implies that there is no belief is really involved, just a mechanical following of some procedure. Asserting the validity of this topic really undermines the validity of the concept involved in it. The whole topic turns into some kind of nonsense. Yurivict (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

And what do you want to change in the article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yurivict, three answers:. 1) that is a distinctly protestant perspective; protestantism focuses on belief much more than practice. in most religions, in most places and times, what you do is as important, or more important, than what you believe, and your religion is certain behaviors. (And even for protestants the behavior of "gathering in Jesus' name" to pray is important.) Behaviors can be criminalized and can be compelled as well. 2) In many places and times and throughout history, there has not been a separation between church and state, and there are legal ramifications of being in one religion or another. As a very mild example, even in the US and other Western countries, we have the weekend on saturday and sunday, which in israel it is friday and saturday, and in muslim countries, friday & saturday or thursday & friday (workweek is mostly cultural but gets into legal/government issues as well, with state holidays and the like). imagine living in a place and time where the connection between church and state was much stronger. 3) please read the sections in indigenous children, where governments have taken indigenous children from their families and peoples, and have raised them in state-funded religious schools, where christianity was all through the curriculum and they had to go church services. that is as about a forced conversion as you can get. I think the article could use more general introductory matter on this kind of stuff. i added a general paragraph but it needs development (and to be frank is pretty weak) Jytdog (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Material to be removed

This material does not belong here. It is from Primary sources, and it is Original Research to suggest that it relates to forced conversion.

″Sahih al-Bukhari, for example, describes Muhammed asking his followers,

Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah." — Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:2:25 see also Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:59:643[57][58][59][60]

Sahih Muslim similarly, in Book 19, describes the conquest of mecca where when faced with a group from the Quraish, Muhammed asked his followers,

"You see the ruffians and the lowly followers of the Quraish. And he indicated by striking one of his hands over the other that they should be killed." — Sahih Muslim, 19:4395 see also Sahih Muslim, 1:29 Sahih Muslim, 1:30 Sahih Muslim, 1:31 Sahih Muslim, 1:32 Sahih Muslim, 1:33 Sahih Muslim, 1:34 Sahih Muslim, 1:35 [61]

These quotes do not relate to forced conversion. The subjects are no told that they must convert. They are offered the chance to keep their beliefs. All monotheisms have texts that state that only their G-d shall be worshipped. If we include these general quotes about death to unbelievers then there are large sections of the Hebrew Bible that need to be included as well.

In particular the second quote just says that unbelievers are to be killed. It does NOT say that they are given a choice between conversion and death, or conversion and penalty. The application of separate laws to believers and non believers is not enough to justify the charge of forced conversion. In Israel and Judah there were separate laws for followers of Yahweh and Gentiles. Can I bring them in here, as examples of forced conversion? Does the fact that Atheists were often allowed to stand for public office in Western Europe qualify as forced conversion? If so then I will add it in, as well as the results of polls in the U.S. stating that many voters would not vote for an atheist, as that can fit into this definition of forced conversion. Theredheifer (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a load of BS, just like your attempt to remove it with a deliberately misleading edit summary was. "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle" does not let anyone keep their beliefs, and it's most definitely not original research, but well and properly sourced. Thomas.W ^talk 11:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, you have not shown a specific occurrence of people being given a choice between adopting a religion and suffering a penalty for not adopting that religion. Killing unbeliever is not forced conversion. The quote's relevance to this topic is clearly OR. PS YoU could reconsider your language if you wish for success on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theredheifer (talk • contribs) 20:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

this is kind of a bizarre discussion. first, at a high level, redheifer is correct that there should be a secondary source used here. however, with respect to forced conversion, the first quote is indeed dead on: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle," and redheifer has said nothing rational to read against the plain meaning of this. redheifer's point about the second quote seems pretty accurate - I don't see anything there about forced conversion either. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The first quote is challenged by Muslim scholars e.g. Ibn Taymiyyah, a major Islamic scholar had this to say about the hadith in question:

"It refers to fighting those who are waging war, whom Allah has permitted us to fight. It does not refer to those who have a covenant with us with whom Allah commands us to fulfill our covenant." [Majmû` al-Fatâwâ (19/20)]

Can I include the following from the New Testament, as an example of forced conversion? Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:13)Theredheifer (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

umm, Ibn Taymiyyah is not exactly a mainstream islamic scholar. and that passage is not from the new testament and the suggestion really stinks of tit for tat. WP:COMPETENCE is useful here. Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm interested in your tit for tat comment. Do you agree that it meets the criteria for forced conversion or not? It does not seem any different from the hadith quote. My point is that neither of them give the unbeliever any choice in the matter. It is the absence of choice that disqualifies these quotes from this article. Testifying that none has the right to be worshipped other than a particular G-d is not the same as worshipping that G-d. Non Muslims in Muslim countries are not allowed to try and convert others to their religion but that is not the same as forcing them to convert to Islam. tit fir tat implies that I am trying to use one religion against another, I am not, I am just concerned that we do not apply different rules to different religions.Theredheifer (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Making changes to the article to make a point, is disruptive behavior. (see WP:POINT) If you continue on that line and actually try to edit the article in that way, you will face a block or a topic ban. I am ignoring that line of discussion. Please discuss the text you are objecting to. once we have resolved that, if you want to discuss other changes that are not point-y you can do as you will. but you have poisoned the well on adding content from Chronicles. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I clearly have not disrupted this article. I am not making a point. I am genuinely surprised that the Hadith text can stay here. There appear to be different sets of rules between the Monotheistic religions and text that can be considered to relate to forced conversion. I will raise this as a separate topic. I am removing the text that has already been agreed as not relating to forced conversion. PS I do not think that you are supposed to threaten me with bans when I have done nothing other than raise a point on the talk page. I have not added text, I have pointed out text that meets the criteria that is applied to this article. It is a criteria that I do not think meets wikipedia policy, but it will be up to general discussion not allegations of well poisoning that decide if it can be added. I do not see how you can say that I am making a point, I am suggesting material that meets the criteria for other sections of the article. That is not making a point, and I will dispute that allegation. You have not answered my question as to whether or not the Chronicles text can be added, but I will lay that out in a separate section. That is not point making it is a serious question as to material that may correctly and rightly belong here. Regards Theredheifer (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

sigh. I am not threatening you, I am simply informing you. I agree with removing the other text, thanks for taking care of that. would you please continue the conversation on the text to which you are objecting? if you are dropping your objections, please me know, and we can turn to the other issue. one thing at a time. thanks.Jytdog (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I see no point in any further objection to the Quran and I note that it appears to be the general opinion that text that says that all non believers must be killed qualifies as forced conversion. I do not agree as forced conversion actually means that the non believer has a choice. Forced conversion means convert or this bad thing will happen. It does not mean - you are a non believer so you will die. What was the other thing? regards.Theredheifer (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

that was the other thing. you objected to 2 texts. we removed one, and based on your note above it appears that you have accepted that it will stay. right? if so we can talk about the chronicles text. Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

an interesting offer, to discuss text that you have stated cannot be added as it would be seen as making a point. Are you proposing to drop your statement that I am making a point, and only discuss whether the text can be added here? Otherwise it could be said that I am falling into a trap by discussing text that I have been told by you not to discuss. Do you see what I mean? Regards Theredheifer (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

NO NO NO. fuck no. again, you came here to object to 2 texts. in the midst of that, you argued for adding material critical of "the other guy" to make a point. I said, don't be point-y, talk about your own issues. We have dealt with one. You appeared to be done with other. are you done with the second text or not? i was trying to be nice and you shove it in my face. for pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Weasel words and unattributed claims

I have started reading this article and the first thing I notice is that the section (religion and power) starts with the weasel words: "In general, anthropologists have shown" just to later make a lot of strong claims about all religion in general. I don't think such claims should be made without attribution. I suggest attributing all claims to their author(s) or removing them. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

that paragraph is sourced. please point out anything in that paragraph that is not supported by the source. Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Forced conversion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090626130437/http://www.assamtimes.org:80/social/3112.html to http://www.assamtimes.org/social/3112.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130123171030/http://mcb.org.uk/media/presstext.php?ann_id=242 to http://www.mcb.org.uk/media/presstext.php?ann_id=242

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hinduism (forced conversion)

Expand the section on 'Hinduism' by adding more recent information about Hindu group Ghar Wapsi in India, who have been forcibly converting Muslims and Christians across India. (ManFromMohenjodaro 21:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC))

Forced Conversion

Aurangazeb never made forced conversion to non muslim to convert muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.110.12.166 (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

"Forced conversion" and atheism

"Forced conversion to Atheism"? How does one "convert" to atheism?? This is an absurd use of terminology. It should be changed either to "secularization", "dechristenization" or at the very least "forced irreligion". The current thing makes no sense because you can't force someone not to believe in God, only to not follow certain rituals or spread their faith. Neither of those two is even possible in atheism. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. On a related matter, an editor has been inserting various examples of state suppression of religion, and religious persecution, but no actual conversion. I'd like to discuss whether this information is within the scope of this article (copied from article to here):

The USSR under its policy of Marxism-Leninism, actively persecuted religions and consistently advocated the control, suppression, and the elimination of religious beliefs during its implementation in the Soviet Union.(ref=[9]) A program including the overarching objective to establish not only a fundamentally materialistic conception of the universe, but to foster "direct and open criticism of the religious outlook" by means of establishing an "anti-religious trend" across the entire school.(ref=Statement of Principles and Policy on Atheistic Education in Soviet Russia, translation from Russian, Stephen Schmidt, S.J., transcribed P. Legrand, page 3) When it became clear after the USSR was established that religion was not dying away on its own, the USSR began general antireligious campaigns.(ref=Sabrina Petra Ramet, Ed., Religious Policy in the Soviet Union. Cambridge University Press (1993). P 4)

The Khmer Rouge had a policy of state atheism.(ref=|last=Wessinger|first=Catherine|title=Millennialism, Persecution, and Violence: Historical Cases|year=2000|publisher=Syracuse University Press|language=English |isbn=9780815628095|page=282|quote=Democratic Kampuchea was officially an atheist state, and the persecution of religion by the Khmer Rouge was matched in severity only by the persecution of religion in the communist states of Albania and North Korea, so there were not any direct historical continuities of Buddhism into the Democratic Kampuchea era.) The Khmer Rouge actively persecuted Buddhists during their reign from 1975 to 1979.(ref=[10]|title=Chronology, 1994-2004 - Cambodian Genocide Program - Yale University) Religion was also banned, and the repression of adherents of Islam,(ref=[11]|title=The Oxford Handbook of Global Religions|publisher=Oxford University Press|page=495) Christianity(ref=[12]|title=The Third Indochina War: Conflict Between China, Vietnam and Cambodia, 1972-79|publisher=Routledge|page=189) was extensive.

Enver Hoxha established Albania as an atheist state.(ref=Representations of Place: Albania, Derek R. Hall, The Geographical Journal, Vol. 165, No. 2, The Changing Meaning of Place in Post-Socialist Eastern Europe: Commodification, Perception and Environment (Jul., 1999), pp. 161–172, Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers))

During the French Revolution, a campaign of dechristianization happened which included removal and destruction of religious objects from places of worship and the transformation of churches into "Temples of the Goddess of Reason", culminating in a celebration of Reason in Notre Dame Cathedral.(ref=Latreille, A. FRENCH REVOLUTION, New Catholic Encyclopedia v. 5, pp. 972–973 (Second Ed. 2002 Thompson/Gale) ISBN 0-7876-4004-2)(ref=Spielvogel (2005):549)(ref=Tallet (1991):1)

Unlike later establishments of anti-theism by communist regimes, the French Revolutionary experiment was short (7 months), incomplete and inconsistent.(ref= name=McGrath2006p45>McGrath (2006):45)(Better source|reason= source is unreliable, not serious at all|date=November 2013) Although brief, the French experiment was particularly notable for the influence upon atheists Ludwig Feuerbach, Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx.(ref= name=McGrath2006p46) Using the ideas of Feuerbach, Marx and Freud, communist regimes later treated religious believers as subversives or abnormal, sometimes relegating them to psychiatric hospitals and reeducation.(ref=McGrath2006p46>McGrath (2006):46)(Dubious |reason= bad source|date=November 2013)

Most of the above has nothing to do with "forced conversion", and appears to be mostly cut&paste content from Persecution and Marxism articles. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I've rechecked the sources, and I'm not seeing what new religion these people were converted to. I must agree with Bataaf van Oranje above that there appears to be some confusion around the dubious concept of the "religion of not believing in gods". Xenophrenic (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I see that a couple editors have chosen to edit-war their problematic content into the article, rather than address the issues raised herein. Most recently, an editor has also introduced this content:

Under the doctrine of state atheism in the Soviet Union, there was a "government-sponsored program of forced conversion to atheism" conducted by the Communists.[117][118][119] This program included the overarching objective to establish not only a fundamentally materialistic conception of the universe, but to foster "direct and open criticism of the religious outlook" by means of establishing an "anti-religious trend" across the entire school.[120] As such, Christopher Marsh, a professor at the School of Advanced Military Studies writes that "Tracing the social nature of religion from Schleiermacher and Feurbach to Marx, Engles, and Lenin...the idea of religion as a social product evolved to the point of policies aimed at the formed conversion of believers to atheism."[121]

According to the cited sources, Marsh in his introduction said he would "attempt to explain" forced conversion to atheism (a phrase that indicates his misunderstanding), but changed his term to the more accurate "forced secularization" (see page 47), and noted instead that "atheist propaganda" was used in attempts to convert and inculcate, not "forced" conversion to another religion. And the cited Adappur source puts "conversion" in scare quotes, for good reason. The Hiro source lacks a page number, and is almost 500 pages long, so I would appreciate a more specific cite so that it can be verified.

Sandra Miesel writes that "attempts to establish an atheistic state--whether by the French Revolution of the Bolshevik Revoution--have led to unparalleled violence, injustice, and social chaos."

Uh, no she doesn't. That quote is from someone completely different, located in the introduction to a non-academic book. As this appears to be a somewhat controversial subject, I'd request that we take additional care in selection of quality sources, and properly conveying current scholarship on the subject. I also note that there has been no discussion as to whether the scope of this article on "Forced conversion" to other religions should have content about atheism, which is not a religion. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Prior to the edit warring between yourself and User:Jobas, there was a section about Atheism in this article. User:LoveMonkey seems to have started a discussion about your recent edit warring on the talk page of an administrator, User:EdJohnston. Since you were reverted, per WP:BRD, you can discuss why you feel the section should be removed rather than edit warring. I should note that if you revert again, you will breach WP:3RR. Removing a section because you feel that a university professor has a "misunderstanding" won't fly here; content that is referenced by reliable sources is the threshold for inclusion here rather than personal opinions. Now, I agree with you that some of the content in the paragraph does not discuss forced conversion and might be better included elsewhere. However, performing a wholesale removal is unacceptable, as is refactoring the talk page and renaming the section (I've restored the original name). I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it does help. Thank you very much for your kind post which,

• (1) discusses edit-warring in a venue designated for discussion of article improvement, and
• (2) pings an uninvolved administrator and an uninvolved (likeminded?) editor, and
• (3) suggests that I should "discuss why the section should be removed", while apparently oblivious to the fact that just above I had already initiated a discussion presenting my concerns that the problematic content is about "religious persecution, but no actual conversion. I'd like to discuss whether this information is within the scope of this article", and
• (4) expresses agreement with my position, noting "some of the content in the paragraph does not discuss forced conversion and might be better included elsewhere", and
• (5) mischaracterizes as "wholesale removal" what was instead a moving of problematic material to this page for collaborative discussion and improvement, and
• (6) falsely asserts that I will "breach WP:3RR" if I revert again (when I had made but a single edit in the last 24 hours), and
• (7) falsely claimed that an observation about a source's lack of understanding was the reason the content was problematic, and
• (8) advises me that Wikipedia's rules that we must "Make the heading clear and specific as to the article topic discussed", and "It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate", are "unacceptable" to you,
• (9) and is accompanied by provocative edits that template a regular and, after you invoking WP:BRD, you re-add contested content without a word of your required discussion. Facepalm

So, honoring the spirit of collaboration that you have now established, I've responded in-kind. I agree to your suggestion that, per WP:BRD, we should discuss the problematic content rather than revert war, and the article section has thus been restored to "Prior to the edit warring between yourself and User:Jobas". Since you've indicated that you feel only "some" of the indicated content belongs elsewhere, perhaps we could start with which parts you feel should remain, and your reasoning as to why? That would help me to better understand your position. Kind regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The cited sources, Marsh and Adappur mention forced conversion, As user @Anupam: said ″Removing a section because you feel that a university professor has a "misunderstanding" won't fly here″, and the source very clear about that: ″It might be added that the most modern example of forced "conversions" came not from any theocratic state, but from a professedly atheist government — that of the Soviet Union under the Communists″.--Jobas (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, about that, I never removed a section because I felt a professor had a misunderstanding. As for what the source said, what is your opinion as to why the source put "conversion" into scare quotes? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Atheist section should stay because in USSR some believers were forced to renounce their religious faith and adopt atheist materialist belief system. Here are some citations to support my claim: "A person convinced that he possessed spiritual truth was required to conceal it from his own children! In the twenties the religious education of children was classified as a political crime under Article 58-10 of the Code—in other words, counterrevolutionary propaganda! True, one was still permitted to renounce one's religion at one's trial: it didn't often happen but it nonetheless did happen that the father would renounce his religion and remain at home to raise the children while the mother went to the Solovetsky Islands. (Throughout all those years women manifested great firmness in their faith.) All persons convicted of religious activity received tenners, the longest term then given."- Solzhenitsyn, A. (1974). THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO 1918-1956 An Experiment in Literary Investigation I-II (pp. 37-38) (T. Whitney, Trans.). New York: Harper & Row.

"Efforts were spent on trying to convince clergy to renounce their ordination, sometimes with promises of good jobs, and other times under physical threat. They had nearly 200 successful cases, including a few who joined in the atheistic efforts by contributing to the propaganda brochure My porvali s religiei (We Broke with Religion)."- Christopher Marsh, RELIGION AND THE STATE IN RUSSIA AND CHINA, p. 73 Mr.strangerX (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I see by your sources that individuals were either convinced to renounce (or pretended to renounce) their religion, but this article is instead about forced conversion to another religion. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Xenophrenic: Why you reinstated the article to an older revision? Koltrevio (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Because the editor in the discussion above invoked WP:BRD and requested that we discuss before implementing those changes. Hopefully it will only be temporary. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic, I mentioned the administrator reviewing your edits, as well as the editor who reported you as a courtesy to you, and therefore I'm surprised at your reaction. I appreciate that other editors have also provided there input here in favor of keeping the paragraph. Given these comments, and the fact that the section is well sourced, I see no reason to remove it. Initially, I thought that the paragraph about the French Revolution might not be relevant to the section but after looking at it again, I realize that it is discussing the forced conversion of Catholic churches into "Temples of the Goddess of Reason". I hope this helps. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 18:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Anupam! What reaction are you surprised at? I merely noted that you "[pinged] an uninvolved administrator and an uninvolved (likeminded?) editor" on this discussion page, which you did. How is that a surprising reaction from me? Of course you were just "providing a courtesy" to me, rather than poisoning the discussion atmosphere here when you brought up "edit warring between yourself and User:Jobas" and "a discussion about your recent edit warring on the talk page of an administrator". I, being a person assuming good faith about you, would never suggest otherwise. So I must thank you for your courtesy to me! As for other editors expressing their desire "in favor of keeping the paragraph", I assume you mean the section under "Atheism"? They did indeed express their desire, but unfortunately, they didn't provide substantive reasoning to support their position. You also noted that the section is well sourced, while I note that the mere six sentences making up that section have been template several times for "dubious" content and "clarification needed" and "better sources needed" — are we talking about the same section? You say that given the comments (which provide zero valid reasoning) and the not-well-sourced-at-all content, you see no reason for removal? Could you clarify, please? And finally, are you saying that a church name is a religion for purposes of the scope of this article? I just wish to clarify before proceeding. God bless, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

In consideration of the comments provided here by myself, User:Mr.strangerX and User:Anupam, as well as the comments here by User:AnonMoos, here by User:LoveMonkey, here by User:TheTimesAreAChanging, and here by User:Ad Orientem, we have consensus to keep the Atheism paragraph on this article. I would suggest that User:Xenophrenic acknowledge this consensus, drop the WP:STICK, and move on. Jobas (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, Jobas! You appear to have a misunderstanding of what "consensus" is. Here is a link to help explain it to you: WP:CONSENSUS. Do you see where it says it is not the result of a vote? So it doesn't matter how many uninvolved people you ping to join in and say "me too!" Consensus is formed by evaluating all legitimate concerns and valid arguments and then arriving at the best possible decision. So with that in mind, can you tell me what you see as the best argument so far for keeping the "Atheism" section in an article which is about forced conversion from one religion to another religion? I'm looking forward to your response. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic, you're welcome. I attempted to improve the referencing without changing any of the core content but you reverted me. I should note that I attributed the Soviet actions to "Communists", something that I thought you would appreciate. Furthermore, I also acknowledged your comment about the sentence that included a quote from medievalist Sandra Miesel and removed it. I hope that you can understand that I am willing to compromise and accept any valid points you might have. As such, would you be willing to restore the additional sources that I added, as well as the attribution to Communists? If not, I can go ahead and do that as it is evident that editors have provided substantive reasoning to support their inclusion. The section on Atheism has several references from historians, such as Christopher Marsh, Paul Froese, among others (quite unlike other parts of this article). I plan to add more information about how churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. were forcibly converted into Museums of Scientific Atheism. The The Destruction of Memory: Architecture at War by Robert Bevan states that "Churches, synagogues, mosques and monasteries were shut down in the immediate wake of the Revolution. Many were converted to secular uses or Museums of Atheism (antichurches), whitewashed and their fittings removed." This is just one example of a source that I plan to add to the section. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 17:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't "revert you", Anupam. In the spirit of WP:BRD you invoked, the article was returned to the state it was in before the first contested edits, while we discussed all the concerns which have been raised. It is unfortunate if some edits of yours were removed in that process, but fear not, they are still recorded in the article history and can be easily retrieved if needed. But before we get ahead of ourselves, can you tell me what your position is on the scope of this article? The scope is defined by the lead, which presently states:

Forced conversion is adoption of a different religion under duress. The convert may willingly embrace their new religion, or may secretly retain the previous beliefs and continue, covertly, with the practices of the original religion, while outwardly maintaining the forms of the new religion.

As you have probably figured out by now, it is my contention that the few sentences we have under the "atheism" header our not within the scope of this article, which is about forced conversion from one religion to another. Atheism isn't a religion, for starters. Also, there is nothing related to atheism which has to do with "forcing" anyone "from a religion" or "to a religion", so the implication is misleading (and yes, I've seen the "forced conversion to atheism" quotation). Third, it is nonsensical to assert that "an absence of belief in gods" can be forced upon anyone. Of course churches can be converted to other uses, clergy arrested or exiled, religious materials burned or removed from educational materials, but all that is serious antireligion, not atheism. (And yes, I know all about "state atheism", which also isn't atheism.) In sum, I agree with the scope as stated: Forced conversion is adoption of a different religion under duress. Atheism isn't a religion, and neither is a church (see 'Goddess of Reason temple'). What is your understanding of the scope? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The issue seems to be in the wording on the lead of the article. It should be changed to Forced conversion is adoption of a different religion or lifestance under duress. because the concept of religion is not a universally held concept. That atheism has been propagated in order to convert people is certainly well documented, for example Antireligious Propaganda in the Soviet Union: A Study of Mass Persuasion by David E. Powell does this well on the Soviet Union. Another text called Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless by Daniel Peris also documents conversion attempts too. Also, strangely enough, there are indeed religions of atheism out there such as the First Church of Atheism (even ordains atheist ministers!), Sunday Assembly, North Texas Church of Freethought, Community Mission Chapel, Unitarian Universalists, Godless Quakers, Ethical Culture, and of course major ones from the Nontheistic religions article.

Part of the problem may be with the way people talk about atheism and religion. Though the term "atheos" does mean "lacking god" or "without god" or even "abandoned by god" from the original Greek (its in the New Testament too - Letter to Ephesians (http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/atheos.html) and it was used among believers in God) it still had a diverse usage from the ancient world to the modern period. There are good texts on the history of atheism and atheists which show that modern atheism atheism is literally a concept that emerged from Christian thought for instance Atheism in France, 1650-1729, Volume I: The Orthodox Sources of Disbelief by Alan Charles Kors. It really is no wonder that when you look at atheists and atheist organizations - they strongly resemble Protestant Christian structure, language, and even beliefs.

Merely lacking belief in god, of course, does not say much about not having a religion or having a religion in and of itself - nontheistic religions shows that belief in god is not necessary to even have a religion in the first place. Belief in god or lack thereof is merely a component of religion, not religion itself. Keeping in mind that Deism is a belief in God without religion, one should expect that there are atheists with religion and even atheism as religion. In fact Jack David Eller, who is an anthropologist of religion and a hardcore atheist has admitted that most religions have been atheistic (animism, animatism, ancestor worship, etc) Atheism Advanced published by a hardcore atheist organization. Mayan1990 (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Ramos1990, welcome to the discussion. I haven't seen you since the Atheism and Criticism of atheism articles; thank you for your input. The issue, to be clear, is the inappropriate inclusion of content about the simply antireligious campaigns in the Soviet Union and France into this article about the "Forced conversion from one religion to another." Since you have proposed changing and expanding the defined scope of this article, presumably to allow this content, it appears to me that you at least acknowledge the content is problematic under the current scope.

You and I are also in agreement that many organized religions exist which do not have a belief in gods as a component of the religion. They can certainly be described as "atheistic" for that reason. But what does that have to do with the content we're discussing? Since atheism isn't a religion, there aren't any actual "churches of atheism". You mention First Church of Atheism, which is actually just a website (which also will process anyone as an "ordained minister" for free, just like many other websites) - we should keep this on a more serious level. As you've noted, there are plenty of non-theist and also secular organizations and "churches" like Sunday Assembly or North Texas Church of Freethought, etc., but these aren't "churches of atheism" either. I understand there is a popular perspective among believers that atheism is to be considered just another "faith", like theism, and there have certainly been efforts to promote that perspective. Postulating that there is an actual "religion of atheism" or "church of atheism" seems to play right into, and attempt to advance, that narrative.

You've used some phrases which are a bit confusing. For example, atheism has been propagated in order to convert people, huh? Did you mean to say "in order to de-convert people"? You also said one should expect that there are atheists with religion and even atheism as religion. Of course atheists, those not having a belief in gods, could be religious, as has already been demonstrated, but I do not see why you say there can be "atheism as religion", which is nonsensical to me. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean with these statements? Then we can get back to the matter at hand, which is whether state initiated anti-religious activities should be described as a forced conversion from one religion to another religion (which, if my position is not clear yet, is an inaccurate and misleading characterization). Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Xenophranic. Thanks for the welcome. The content from the Soviet Union and France is not really an issue for this article considering that these events involved active attempts at creating atheists, not merely changing people's minds about God or Christianity. The League of Militant Godless for example actively published for atheism with a particular outlook of reality or "ultimate concern". As Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless by Daniel Peris notes, "Created in 1925, the League of the Militant Godless was the nominally independent organization established by the Communist Party to promote atheism. By all outward appearances, the League seemed to succeed in its mission. In 1932, seven years after its creation, the League claimed 5.5 million members, 2 million more than the Communist Party itself. The League's Central Council in Moscow published its own newspaper, Bezbozhnik (The Godless), several other Russian-language journals, and propaganda materials in many other languages of the Soviet Union. Antireligious pamphlets and posters were printed in large numbers. The League's far-flung network of cells and councils sponsored lectures, organized demonstrations, and actively propagandized against religious observance. Leading Bolshevik figures gave speeches at the League's national congress in 1929, at which the League officially became "Militant." The Communist Party, the Komsomol, the trade unions, the Red Army, and Soviet schools all conducted antireligious propaganda, but the League was the organizational centerpiece of this effort to bring atheism to the masses."

If the issue was merely communism or nationalism, then that would not have required active attempts at converting people's worldviews since communists who were Muslim or Christian were certainly available. I am sure you will agree with this. The fact that this extra step on personal conviction was taken in order to change people's ultimate worldviews, not just cultural loyalty, is what others have been focusing on.

Keep in mind that conversion attempts on ultimate worldviews include, naturally, lots of "anti-" talk in order to disconnect a person form their original beliefs then to be replaced with an alternative. Writings from missionaries make it clear that conversion is dual process of loss and gain, not merely about loss.

Atheism, like its twin - theism - have a religious side to it, just as theism has a non-religious side to it. Active atheists do not merely lack belief in God, they engage in converting attempts. For example, the fact that "A Manual for Creating Atheists" was even written (which details how to do street evangelism for atheism) sure makes it very hard to not see atheism as a component of religion. Indeed, religious activities such as having active congregations (First Church of Atheism has active chapters and is not a spoof at all, considering that atheist minsters do marriages and other services and I have been to Unitarian congregational services myself) make the image of atheists as merely not having a belief in God, quite unrepresentative of the diversity and contradictions they naturally have. Its only natural some atheists feel a need to bond over their ultimate worldview whihc is why they join groups like American Atheists. It provides a place for them to join others who have the same ultimate worldview as as is the same for Muslims who like to gather with other Muslims and Jews with Jews.

It is a bit weird that atheists have engaged in such parallel activity (considering that going beyond merely lacking belief in God is unnecessary), but this is not unusual since excellent studies like Varieties of Unbelief: Atheists and Agnostics in English Society, 1850-1960 by Susan Budd shows that such diversity has a history. Of course, just like theism, not all of it is religion. Not sure if you are aware that most of the people without a religion in America have an active belief in God! [[13]]. Reality sure is more diverse than our dichotomous abstractions. :)

Now, for me the issue is that things like paganism (mentioned in the article) is not religion and yet it is very relevant in the article. There is no religion called paganism since that term is a broad term to the beleifs of non-Christians, but it can be seen as a class of ultimate worldview, like atheism and Islam are. The article is broad enough to compensate things like paganism because there is involvement in converting between ultimate worldviews. You mentioned "de-converting", but that would not make sense in light of the attempts by the Soviets and the French on actually replacing the beliefs of Christians and other people with alternative beliefs. In my view, the wording should be changed to include "other ultimate worldviews".Mayan1990 (talk) 06:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the comments expressed by User:Ramos1990 and actually think his/her revised introduction would be welcomed by User:Xenophrenic since it refers to atheism as a lifestance or worldview, rather than a religion. As a result, I've restored that. Nevertheless, the debate on whether atheism should be classified as a religion or not isn't really relevant here; that's a topic that could go on forever; even courts have ruled on this issue. The focus of this discussion should be on the threshold of inclusion for Wikipedia, i.e. reliable sources. Here, we have multiple reliable sources written by renowned historians that discuss the forced conversion of people from various religions, as well as their houses of worship, to atheism and for atheistic use, respectively (as I've said before, whether atheism is a religion or not is irrelevant). I've added even more sources to the article and am particularly thankful for User:Ramos1990 finding a source by Daniel Peris who emphasizes that the League of Militant Atheist's "organizational centerpiece" was "to bring atheism to the masses". Thus far, almost all of the comments made by users here have agreed that the section on Atheism will continue to stay in the article. I would ask User:Xenophrenic to respect this continually growing consensus but, if User:Xenophrenic objects to the new additions, he/she can state them here and the rest of us, time permitting, will continue to explain their relevance to him/her. Would User:Xenophrenic accept a good faith compromise to rename the section to "State atheism"? I could agree to this as a peaceful gesture as a token of goodwill. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Anupam. I think that there is a general consensus here now since the article does naturally have a wider scope than the original limited scope in the lead. Personal convictions over ultimate concerns is the core topic for forced conversions. Also all the references that were restored were spot on with the topic! Mayan1990 (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, guys. I'll respond to each of your concerns, while reiterating a few of mine. In order:

The content from the Soviet Union and France is not really an issue for this article...

It's actually the main issue under discussion here.

considering that these events involved active attempts at creating atheists, not merely changing people's minds about God or Christianity.

If by "creating atheists", you mean changing their minds about gods - what's the difference? The only way you can "create atheists" out of believers is by convincing them that their beliefs are not reasonably founded.

The League of Militant Godless for example actively [published, lectured stuff on atheism] and [also demonstrated and published antireligious stuff as well (long Peris quote omitted)]

Yes, they did indeed. Created, sponsored and directed by the communist party, they did both simultaneously: advocate atheism, and also ran an antireligious campaign. But all that is outside the scope of this article, which is the forced conversion from one religion to another religion. Hence the problem. That content is more suited for one of the Religious persecution articles, or articles like Anti-religious campaign during the Russian Civil War.

If the issue was merely communism or nationalism, then that would not have required active attempts at converting people's worldviews since communists who were Muslim or Christian were certainly available. I am sure you will agree with this.

To be frank, not only do I not agree, I'm not quite sure what it is you are trying to say. When the USSR was established, the communist government did not want to compete with the (quite powerful at that time) churches for influence over the populace, so they launched an anti-religion campaign (so called variously as "state atheism", "militant atheism", or "scientific atheism"), and they also advocated a state-supported stance of atheism (atheism). What part of all that are you saying wasn't communist government policy?

Atheism, like its twin - theism - have a religious side to it...

That's what I was waiting to hear. You just stated the popular (and quite incorrect) "atheism = religion" argument that theists and religionists have often advanced during attempts to defend religion against criticism, by equating ("its twin"?! Really?) lack of belief of gods as just another religion or faith.

Active atheists do not merely lack belief in God, they engage in converting attempts.

No; atheists do not engage in converting attempts. Now some people who happen to be atheists may try to convince a believer to abandon or recant their belief in gods or other supernatural beings, but such attempts at convincing are not component of, nor motivated by, atheism. Proselytizing is not part of atheism, like it is with religions, and neither is criticism of religions. Those activities are distinct to each individual, and are unrelated to atheism.

which details how to do street evangelism for atheism

Not really. "Street epistemology" is what the book actually details, and the goal is logical reasoning, not atheism. (He says atheism is just an incidental "byproduct" once a person begins to rely on reason.)

First Church of Atheism has active chapters...

You mean like Facebook pages? And you say they are active because someone clicked the 'Like' button? I thought we were going to keep this serious...

...atheists as merely not having a belief in God, quite unrepresentative of the diversity and contradictions they naturally have...

Uh, atheists don't have a belief in gods, and that is the only thing they are guaranteed to have in common as atheists. But they are also people, so they will have no doubt also have feelings about other stuff, and opinions, views, beliefs, etc., so I've no idea what point you are attempting to make with that observation.

..some atheists feel a need to bond over their ultimate worldview...

That verbiage makes no sense to me; absence of belief in gods isn't a "worldview" - it's a lack of belief in supernatural deities. The "worldviews" of one atheist will be different from those of any other atheist.

American Atheists. It provides a place for them to join others who have the same ultimate worldview

No, not really. "American Atheists" is not much of a social club. It's primarily an activist organization which focuses on separation of church and state, and protecting the rights of non-believers in the public sphere. You'd have better luck "joining others" who are atheists by simply noting your atheism on your Facebook profile. And as I noted above, every atheist you meet will have a different "worldview".

...not all of it is religion.

Atheism? None of it is religion. There is, of course, an overlap between people who do not believe in gods and those who do not believe in religion and supernatural stuff.

for me the issue is that things like paganism (mentioned in the article) is not religion and yet it is very relevant in the article

"Paganism", or "of the pagan religions", is still relevant because pagan religions are religions (unlike atheism, which is not a religion). Forced conversion from pagan religions to a Christian religion did occur, which is why they are mentioned in an article about forced conversion from one religion to another religion. There are numerous areas where wording can be improved in the article.

the debate on whether atheism should be classified as a religion or not isn't really relevant here

Or anywhere, for that matter. It's not even a debate.

...even courts have ruled on this issue.

Not really. Courts have ruled on whether non-religions like secular and atheistic organizations can receive the same benefits and exemptions that religions do, but courts can't define atheism as something it is not. Just as the courts say a tomato can be categorized as a vegetable for the purposes of certain tariffs and FDA restrictions, but they are still a fruit.

Would User:Xenophrenic accept a good faith compromise to rename the section to "State atheism"?

That is rather putting the cart before the horse, is it not? We were discussing the scope of this article. It sounds as if you are proposing to change and expand the scope from "Forced conversion from one religion to another religion" into something dealing with the nebulous "lifestances" and "ultimate worldviews" - which I've never heard used in the context of forced religious conversions. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I've just picked up a couple of quality sources and am reviewing them; I think there might be a solution we haven't thought of here. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• Dude User:Xenophrenic Give it up man. There's a consensus here and you're just being a dick. Let me explain it in simpler terms: Religion is defined as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods" and Atheism is defined as "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." Someone being forced converted to Atheism is the same thing as a positive number being changed into zero. It's pretty clear. You're just edit warring. @Everyone else, if he doesn't stop, just report him to the admin notice board. It's just a waste of people's time at this point. CerealKillerYum (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, CerealKillerYum. I'm sorry you feel this is "just a waste of people's time", but no one is forcing you to participate. Politics and religion are always sensitive and controversial subjects, and what we are discussing here has elements of both; you should keep that in mind. Your comment has not helped to advance the discussion. I can't decipher exactly what the "it" is that you were trying to explain in simpler terms, but your definitions are lacking, and your statement that "Someone being forced converted to Atheism is the same thing as a positive number being changed into zero", carries no meaning the way you phrased it. At least none that I can discern, and I've read and re-read what you wrote. As explained above, "forced converted to Atheism [sic]" is a nonsensical phrase, unless you first redefine atheism as a religion or a "worldview", rather than as an absence of belief in gods. We aren't allowed to redefine terms to suit our arguments. As noted on page one of the Storming the Heavens source referenced above, "the Bolsheviks ultimately attacked all religions and denominations"; it does not say believers were forced to convert from one religion to another religion. That's what we're discussing. (As an aside, I think you would also find it helpful if you reviewed the concepts of WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDIT WARRING, and WP:AGF.) Xenophrenic (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I tried everybody, I tried.CerealKillerYum (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone and CerealKiller Yum. The argument that Xenophrenic is proposing is as Anupam has noted, not really relevant to this page. Whether atheism is a religion or not is not the point of the article. (Even though we have already seen examples of atheism as religion in various forms through Unitarian congregations, Sunday Assembly, North Texas Church of Freethought, First Church of Atheism and its multiple chapters and even research how atheists in America raise their children in light of atheism in "Freethought Denominations" - Atheism, Secularity, The Family, And Children by Christel Manning in Atheism and Secualrity Vol. 1, we can even add more things like almost 30% of atheists from multiple countries engage in prayer [14], other things like books for street promotion of atheism as an ultimate worldview, and perhaps we can include other studies on "convinced atheists" in Europe that have diverse and prevalent supernatural beliefs besides Gods - Atheism And Secularity In The Netherlands by Loek Halman in Atheism and Secualrity Vol. 2). It sure is an interesting world we live in and abstractions of religion and atheism don't seem to do justice to the reality of people's lives. Atheism, just like theism, is both religiously and secularly diverse with variant traditions and manifestations. You said "every atheist you meet will have a different "worldview", but this is universal since every Theist you meet literally will have a different worldview too!! Theists are not uniform in ideas, beliefs, and concepts - that is why Hindus and Muslims and Jews have different worldviews.

Back to the article. There is already a general agreement here among editors that the stuff on the Soviets and French on forced conversion belong in the article because it is clear that even if atheism is seen as not a religion (can be seen easily as a worldview instead - which is what I was proposing we do in chaning the lead to "other worldviews") still engaged in forced conversion of peoples deepest beliefs about reality - this is what the article is about. The active promotion of atheism by the League of the Militant Godless, as opposed to merely nullifying peoples theistic beliefs, surely fits well in the forced conversion article because atheists actively engaged in changing people's ultimate worldviews about reality by force - as is documented in the references provided by Anupam [15]. The sources clearly state this - the quotes are there. The activities by the League of the Militant Godless was not just about attacking other religions, it was about "promoting atheism" and "bringing atheism to the masses" as well. The fact that the League was even made speaks volumes on the fact that the League was not providing merely open and free information to educate people on theism and Christianity or Islam so they can decide for themselves if they should hold these beliefs. There was procession which did lead to repression, which is why once the Soviets went down, non-atheist beliefs went up significantly on surveys on religious identification. The people had been were repressed (Pew Research Center's comments on this increase after the fall of the Soviet Union [16]. This is within the purview of the article.

In terms of Paganism, well it is not a religion and is certainly not a class of religions either see the Patheos library on it [17]. Its etymology shows that even the term "pagan" started to be used from the 14th-15th century with modern usage beginning in the 20th century [18]. It is a modern abstraction for a mish-mash of beliefs and cultures that are not generalizable. Mayan1990 (talk) 02:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your whole first paragraph, I get it: You think atheism is a religion. It isn't, of course. I (and reliable sources) disagree, the flawed examples you've given notwithstanding.

There is already a general agreement here among editors that the stuff on the Soviets and French on forced conversion belong in the article...

That is not correct; otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. Of course there is disagreement; I doubt that I'd be typing this much if there was agreement. As I've explained above, the Soviets and French government were against religion, not converting people to a religion - which makes the content beyond the scope of this article. Another editor near the beginning of this section called "forced conversion to atheism" absurd. And I agree it is. Several more editors have reverted the insertion of this content in the past. And now I see an editor has resorted to citing unpublished non-[WP:RS|RS]] papers from students, and inserting misquotes, into the section trying to save it.

I'm skipping past your "Pagan" information for now, but we can certainly get to that. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Considering that most editors here are favorable to keeping the stuff (even other editors like Jobas looking at the history of the section), I went ahead and restored the material with a minor change. Please do not revert it since this is the current consensus. You can still talk about it here though to see if there is any need for changes.Mayan1990 (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

It is clear that some people "are favorable to keeping the stuff", just as there are people who feel the material is inappropriate and out of scope for this article. We are presently discussing the merits of the arguments for each position. I thought you were aware of that. You just restored problematic content and stated "this is the current consensus", when there has been no agreed-upon consensus. If there was a consensus, you'd be able to point (and link) to that decision, and that decision would convey how all legitimate concerns were incorporated and addressed. After reading your previous paragraphs, I suspect you may not correctly understand what concerns were raised. Please review our WP:CONSENSUS policy. You'll discover that consensus isn't determined by "Considering that most editors here are favorable to keeping the stuff" - it isn't a head count or vote. And edit-warring your preferred version into the article while discussions are ongoing is disruptive. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

On the Consensus page you linked, it clearly says does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns. That is the point. Of course, your concerns have been addressed by expanding the scope to "religion and other worldviews" and so have everyone else's. The issue here seems to have started with the lead being about mentioning religion only. So I used it the right way.

The issue is not about religion for this page since forced conversion to other worldviews, that is mingling with personal convictions of reality is the scope of the article, and have occurred in both secular and religious forms. Whether atheism is a religion or not is irrelevant as others have already noted because its is about forced conversions of people's worldviews to the point that they have to disguise it. The proposed wording on the lead to "other worldviews" is already inclusive of things that were themselves not necessarily a religion like paganism. Again "paganism" is a modern word and it is a mish mash of many cultures and beliefs that is not really generalizable. People in the ancient world did not call themselves "Pagan" and it certainly was not a belief system either. And of course the fact that active atheism was promoted, not merely nullifying theistic beliefs, shows that it was involved attempting at changing people's view of reality rather than just a political system or national loyalty. Of course the data on affiliation after the fall of the Soviet Union does show that many felt freer to identify with their previous worldviews. Again, Atheism need not be a religion for this article and to keep focus on this "word" would be to deviate from the scope of the article. Keep in mind that Christians sometimes argue that Christianity is not a religion either, rather just a relationship to God. So for those, the term "religion" is also inappropriate and problematic.

Also keep in mind that the word "religion" is a modern invention, not an ancient or historical term. No one in the ancient or medieval world called themselves "religious" and even the concept of other "religions" barely emerged around the time of the Protestant Reformation. So for the purposes of the article, the wording the wording should be changed to Forced conversion is adoption of a different religion or worldview under duress. What do you think? Mayan1990 (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Ramos1990 has been generous by amending the lede of the article, which accomodated User:Xenophrenic's opinion about whether atheism is classified as a religion or not. Several reliable sources by historians document the forced conversion of individuals to atheism (as well as houses of worship to Museums of Atheism). As I stated before, the threshold for inclusion is whether the information is verifiable by reliable sources. I would appreciate if User:Xenophrenic could please respect these policies, as well as the fact that multiple users here, apart from User:Xenophrenic, have formed a consensus to keep the section, which involved spending days attempting to explain to User:Xenophrenic why the content is relevant, in light of the multiple references in the section. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Ramos1990 and User:Anupam have made a wonderful effort to locate sources to add to this article and the section looks even better than before. I'm glad that, with the input of multiple Wikipedians, we've established a consensus to keep the "Atheism" section in this article. Reliable sources, not one's personal beliefs of what constitute a religion or not, is the standard for what content can be added to an article. Since User:Xenophrenic has been blocked for wdit warring against consensus, they should discuss here in the future if they have any concerns (even though we have addressed them already). Best, Jobas (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Forced conversion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029192236/http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1045 to http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1045
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070303014932/http://www.ilstu.edu/class/hist263/docs/1917const.html to http://www.ilstu.edu/class/hist263/docs/1917const.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Group talk page by religion

Can we organize this talk page by religion, like the article is? I realize this isn't typical, but I think it would help comments and conversation be more useful. I wouldn't change any of the existing headings, but would add a higher level heading and move content around. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improvement of Islam section lead

I noticed a few opportunities for improvement in the lead to the Islam section. First, it says "Islam explicitly prohibits forced conversion" This talk page, at least, reveals some debate on this. What does "Islam" mean here? Islamic legal tradition? The Koran? Furthermore, this statement then seems to be contradicted a few sentences later, where the article reads "In theory, ... pagans faced a choice between conversion to Islam and fight to the death". I'd appreciate a more knowledgeable editor on this topic clarifying these issues. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I've made a more precise summary of the cited sources. There are ways to split hairs here, and we could reflect them, to the degree that they're covered in RSs. Some of it probably has to do with different interpretations of what constitutes a forced conversion. Eperoton (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forced conversion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090903020244/http://www.storialibera.it/epoca_contemporanea/messico_1926-1929/articolo.php?id=508 to http://www.storialibera.it/epoca_contemporanea/messico_1926-1929/articolo.php?id=508

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Europeans were forced to convert pretty much always

Throughout the middle ages Europeans who were not Christian were under constant threat of being enslaved and castrated(if they were male) with jews and Christians being the instigators of the threat and muslims being the recipients of the European slaves . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.100.44.118 (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

What is your source? Swingoswingo (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forced conversion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca:8080/RIR_RDI/RIR_RDI.aspx?id=454343&l=e
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221063358/http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=151043 to http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=151043

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Colonial Americas

Whenever there have been conflicts, there’s no doubt that forced conversions have occurred. However the number of forced conversions in Iberian colonies at the beginning of European colonization would’ve have been limited to the native population within and nearby the boundaries of the established colonies. Particularly since most of the warriors that defeated the native empires comprised primarily of other indigenous nations so conversion would not have been something that took place overnight. In the subsequent decades and centuries Old World diseases wiped out a large portion of the indigenous population, including allies, which allowed Westernized biracials, who have outnumbered those of mostly European ancestry early on in the colonization period, to thrive at their expense given that they were less susceptible and vulnerable to those diseases, eventually gaining the ascendancy and gradually absorbed, forcefully or voluntarily, the remaining indigenous population spread over a vast area. Therefore forced conversions would have been restricted to the first few years after the defeat of the indigenous empires. Conversion to Christianity by other indigenous populations all over the region would’ve happened across many decades and centuries that in the latter years of colonization involved more of an assimilation process of the dominant mestizo group than warfare. A section of forced conversions of Iberians to Islam during the 700 years or so of Muslim rule would be an appropriate addition.