Regardless of why it was. Islam spread and kept its followers without the sword. That is the point.
Hahahaha. At first, yes. It's not like they could possibly survived if they had acted violently from the start. Out of necessity, because they were so few, they had to "suffer" the consequences of turning to Islam and brooking the generally accepted thought of the times. Had they followed any other course, we would never have heard about Islam or Muhammad. So the WHY is of paramount importance. Again, early Muslims suffered because they continually attacked the very basic religious thought of their hosts in Mecca. Again, Muslims themselves would not endure sure attacks for such a prolonged period, even in this day and age - without attempting to eradicate such attacks.
Plus, as you know very well, Muhammad's message was changed, becoming more militant, after he traveled to Yathrib/Medina - after he had more followers. The simple fact is that he now had enough followers to begin dictating terms, to enter into battles... to launch raids on caravans... etc...
This could not have been a welcome sign to the people of Mecca, as they now saw this upstart attacking their caravans and becoming overtly threatening. You have to remember that his message threatened their entire way of life. You have to remember that the inhabitants of Mecca did not accept him as being a "Messenger of god" and rightly saw him, from their perspective, as being a menace they needed to deal with - quickly.
Yes, Meccans were wrong then. Muslims are wrong now. Thank you for seeing what Muslims fail to see ... the wrong in their ways.
In any case you missed the point again. They suffered (since you don't like the word persecution) and did not change their religion. What threat of sword was keeping them from changing their religion? Rather they were offered much in exchange for leaving Islam. Why did they not leave it?
My guess is that people came to Islam in the earliest years because they FEARED that Muhammad
was a "messenger of God". I would expect that they FEARED the consequences he routinely outlined
for ignoring his message. To primitive people "Fear god" would likely be a very powerful motivating force and once they believed it, it is unlikely they would easily change their thinking.
I would suggest that the Meccans took him at his word, but translated it to "Fear Muhammad" and not so much Allah.
And yet again you miss the point. Why are you going into a debate about whether this was persecution? The discussion here is whether Islam needs the sword to spread.
I am trying to point out that the idea itself is a bit of a canard. Was Islam initially spread by the sword? No, of course not. How could it be? For the first 10 years, Muhammad had virtually no followers. Slowly people began to be attracted to him and I am saying that, as primitive people, many would be compelled to believe because they began to FEAR that what he was saying was right and that he really was speaking for GOD. That would be a very powerful incentive for them to listen very closely to what he was saying.
Meanwhile you are blissfully ignoring the effect his words had on the Meccans who were not inclined to accept his message. How could his message be anything but threatening? He openly castigated their ideas of god and dismissed their pagan beliefs in no uncertain terms. It is amazing that he was not killed early on.
Interesting how you justify Meccans.
Well, think about it. Put yourself in their position. How would you feel? How would you react?
You single-handedly justify the torture of Jesus, Moses, and all Prophets.
Hardly. First off, I do not include Muhammad in the company of Moses and Jesus. I do not consider him to be a prophet. Do try to understand that. But even comparing him to Jesus, for example, how many armies did Jesus command? How many battles did Jesus ride into?
Just because they were convincing others of their ways. Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) taught his followers women's rights, equality of races, etc. ... how bad of him to try and influence others (God forbid) through logic, reason, and God's signs.
I understand, and in some terms his message was remarkable - FOR THE TIME - however if is foolish to discount the reactions to his message. You have to remember that his message appeared gradually. It's not like he had a Magnum Opus policy statement from day one. He had years to polish his message. But the fact remains that Islam did not begin to spread like wildfire until Muhammad authorized his followers to defend themselves (vigorously) and gave them the idea that to die in the cause of Islam was the highest honor. It was when people began to look at the great "reward" for giving their relatively miserable material lives for their religion, when they loved death more than their enemies loved life, that the lid came off and Islam exploded onto the scene. If giving ones life for ones religion is not a violent act... I don't know what is.
But again... it did not begin by the sword, but it certainly morphed into a religion aided by the sword. It is true that some followers of Islam were very peaceful, but likewise many could hardly wait to offer the next village along the way the three famous choices.
1. Revert to Islam and accept Muhammad as the Messenger of God.
2. Retain their religion, but pay a tax to Muslims and live under Muslim rule.
3. Go to war...
To me, that isn't much of a choice... It is flat out compulsion...
Oddly, there was no 4th option of "Leave us alone and go away."
