Don’t confuse contemporary Judaism with what the religion was like in earlier historical periods. Jews only gave up proselytizing when it became physically dangerous (under Christianity and then Islam) for them to do so. Judaism used to be very active in seeking new converts – both willing and unwilling. There were forcible conversions of non-Jews by the Maccabees/Hasmoneans for instance, and by several other small Jewish kingdoms who resorted to forced conversions.

“Not imposing your faith on others” back then was a policy of the weaker party; it wasn’t a religious or philosophical ideal. If you were on top, you imposed your religion by various means. If you weren’t on top, you avoided seeking converts in order to avoid retaliation from the dominant religion.

As to the Jewish people not imposing their faith on others: the reason is that one has to be born into the faith by a Jewish mother, who must not be a convert herself, to be properly Jewish.

Dídac says: August 4, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Well, spong. In some forgotten place, Koran says “There is no compulsion in religion”. It also tells about respect for the other “Book religions”. However, a lot of Muslims prefer to take these few passages as an allegories that must be thoroughly interpreted instead of practice them literally.

Actually, the rule of abrogation, (meaning, the latest passages count more in case of contradiction) do away with that.

Mohammed wrote the first passages including the “no compulsion” when he was a small time charlatan, with not many followers. So he was all tolerant (he didn’t have a choice really)

because the Koran is edited in chronological order, the passages where it says, “if a man choose another religion it won’t be accepted and he will go to hell” are later in the book, and therefore count more, and replace the early ones.

Because at the end of his life Mohammed had more followers, he changed his attitude, and was ruthless with dissidents, by then he felt secure with an army of caravan riders, holding a city like medina,

“no compulsion in religion” is meaningless to the Muslims, and clinically used to convince “the west” with a smile that they are super tolerant…

In Islam, leaving the religion (apostasy) is penalised by death, and they say clearly that Islam is the only truth, and that jews and christians can be “tolerated” as long as they are subdued as dihmmis, and pay special protection taxes… Its a Mafia stile enterprise. You can’t leave the clan, and the competition, when can’t be destroyed outright, then it’s slowly drained until they are gone in a generation or two.

A sexist policy to be sure, but that’s religion for you.

This very tangible, clearly-defined code of conduct stands in stark contrast to the way of life of unbelievers and hence ’seems’ more genuinely ‘godly’ to the new adherent than the ambiguous behaviour of contemporary Xtians, who in general (to varying extents depending on denomination etc) wear the same clothes, watch the same movies, drink the same demon liquor and get up to all the worldly mischief as the rest of pagan society – safe in the knowledge that their ticket to heaven is secure now that their sins (past/present and future) have been washed away by the blood of the lamb.

So in short, I would say that Islam appeals to some because it seems to be a more genuine faith, with a relatively simple theology and system of observance as compared with the trinitarian/vaguely polytheistic Xtianity.

@Spoing. I liked your article. I think the point about females converting because they fall in love is a strong one but it still does not explain everything.

Trust me ‘atheists’ have done a lot more work to understand religionists than the other way round. Ref http://skepticsannotatedbible.com.

@Didac, again I must say in favour of Xtians vs Muslims – while the former are actually willing to engage in debate about the issue (no matter how laughable their reasoning turns out to be) , the latter tend to respond with pleasantries such as fatwas, flogging, burning etc.

One difference between the Bible and the Koran, it is that the Koran was written purposely as a sacred book. The Bible was compiled as a sacred book of books, which is different. Of coure, the Book of Mormon was literally produced as a piece of revelation.

The Koran is a collection of individual teachings probably recorded from Mo in person. However, e. g. Solomon will be very surprised to see some of his sexually explicit poems included side by side to the Pentateuch.

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

The same can’t be said about Islam. (I stand to be corrected)

Not sure what my point is but I think it may be that certain interpretations of Xtianity have at least some redeeming features (no pun intended) whereas it’s very difficult to see any in Islam. Hence I’m unsure that “both groups are inordinately hating of women” is a fair assessment.

As to why women are drawn to Islam, my Google research has uncovered several theories, some more insulting and patronizing than others. One is that it is a less complex theology than trinitarian Xtianity … another suggests that turning to Islam is a response to the “chaotic” sexual mores of western society. One bright young thing believes that “… Islamic teaching [makes] perfect, logical sense. You can approach it intellectually and there are no gaps, no great leaps of faith that you have to take.”

So there you have it. This article has some interesting facts/stats/quotes from the newbie houris mouths:

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/women_converts_find_liberation_in_islam/

Seventy-two white crystal grapes aside, the muslims did generate a more enticing fiction.