Exposing Islam

🕌 Coexistence or Conquest? What Islamic Doctrine Really Says About Non-Muslims

🎭 The Myth of Peaceful Coexistence

Every time Islam is criticized for its treatment of non-Muslims, you’ll hear the same rehearsed line:

“Islam means peace.”
“We respect the People of the Book.”
“There’s no compulsion in religion.”

But behind this PR-friendly image is a doctrine not of coexistence, but conditional tolerance — designed to end the moment Islam gains power.

⚖️ Two-Tier Theology: Believers and Dhimmis

In classical Islamic law:

Muslims are first-class citizens.
Non-Muslims (specifically Jews and Christians) can exist — but only as dhimmis (subjugated subjects).

What’s the price of their survival?

Pay the jizya tax “with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (Qur’an 9:29)
Accept second-class status.
No new churches.
No public worship.
No criticism of Islam.
No equal rights in court.

This is not peaceful pluralism. It’s tolerated inferiority.

🪓 Polytheists and Atheists? No Tolerance at All

While Jews and Christians get subjugation, polytheists and atheists get the sword.

Classical jurists like Malik, Shafi’i, and Hanbali scholars are explicit:

“Idol worshippers are to be fought until they accept Islam or are killed.”

Why?

Because they are considered:

Spiritually impure (najas)
Intellectually void
Legally outside the dhimmi contract

They aren’t offered protection — just one choice:

Convert or die.

🤝 What About "No Compulsion in Religion"?

This favorite verse (Qur’an 2:256) is a paper shield — quoted out of context and historically abrogated.

Even mainstream tafsir (Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir, Jalalayn) explain that once Islam dominates, enforcement is legitimate.

And it’s not just scholars — even Muhammad’s own actions prove otherwise:

Forced conversions of pagan tribes after conquest
Mass executions of resisting Jews (e.g., Banu Qurayza)
Banishing of non-Muslims from Arabia

So much for “no compulsion.”

📜 Historical Consistency: Conquest, Not Coexistence

From Muhammad to the Umayyads, Abbasids, Ottomans — the model was conquest:

Expand the Dar al-Islam (House of Islam)
Shrink the Dar al-Harb (House of War)
Fight until submission

This wasn’t fringe. It was core policy — even enshrined in Islamic jurisprudence under Siyar (laws of war).

And when they couldn’t conquer by force? They used diplomacy as a pause — not a peace.

🧠 Modern Apologetics vs Classical Doctrine

Today’s Muslim reformers say:

“That was the past! Islam can evolve!”

But the problem is not extremists — it’s the mainstream sources:

Qur’an 9:5 – “Kill the polytheists wherever you find them”
Qur’an 9:29 – “Fight the People of the Book… until they feel subdued”
Sahih Hadith – “I have been commanded to fight the people until they say: ‘There is no god but Allah.’”
Reliance of the Traveller (Umdat al-Salik) – “The caliph fights Jews and Christians… until they pay jizya.”

Apologists can spin it all day — but the texts say what they say.

💣 The Ultimate Goal: Supremacy, Not Equality

Islam isn’t content with coexistence. The Qur’an itself says:

“It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, to prevail over all religion.”
(Qur’an 9:33, 61:9, 48:28)

This isn’t a vision of equal paths to God. It’s a blueprint for dominance.

Every other religion?

To be subjugated
Rebranded as corrupted versions of Islam
Invalidated unless it accepts Muhammad

🔥 So Where Does That Leave Non-Muslims Today?

Under secular constitutions, Muslims coexist peacefully. But in Sharia-based systems — like Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Taliban Afghanistan — it’s a different story:

Churches are illegal in Mecca and Medina.
Conversion from Islam = death penalty.
Criticism of Muhammad = blasphemy, punishable by prison or death.
Non-Muslims must hide their worship.

The moment Sharia gains ground, coexistence dies.

🧨 Conclusion: Coexistence Is a Lie — the Doctrine Is Conquest

If Islam really preached equality of religions:

There would be equal rights in Muslim-majority nations.
Apostates wouldn’t face death.
Christians wouldn’t be jailed for preaching.
Jews wouldn’t be labeled “apes and pigs” in tafsir.
No one would be forced into silence under “blasphemy” laws.

But none of that’s true.

Because the doctrine — from scripture to sharia — doesn’t want equality.

It wants supremacy.