When and where?
Did the bible said to do so?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does Islam Need the Sword to Spread?
- Thread starter tariqkhwaja
- Start date
Did the bible said to do so?
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
It was? Seriously?
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
The New world (ie. North America and South America) comes to mind...
The various crusades...
Europe throughout the Dark Ages...
But Christianity was already widespread by then.
I think their ratio would be small compared to Islam.
I don't think the goal of the crusades was to spread Christianity.
Anyway, this wasn't instructed by the Bible, the opposite is correct.
Spirited
Bring about world peace
I think that the strictness of Islam doesn't necessarily contribute to more indoctrination, but rather, it contributes to more communication and time spent solely within the family circle. The result of this is that less people want to leave, because they feel sufficient filial love while growing up. People don't leave religions as frequently because of rules as they claim to, it's more common that they leave because the people instructing them do not practice the faith they impose on their children. I see a lot of this with Christianity and much less with Islam, as Islam is much more a culture in western countries than Christianity, as it's connected intimately with the minorities that practice it.
I currently like the practices of Islam more than Christianity - from what I've observed where I live - because I see much less talking and much more walking. I see too little emphasis on being saved and too little on being a good person to really keep me satisfied and I think that's what's so beautiful about Islam at the moment.
tariqkhwaja
Jihad Against Terrorism
God's blessing was enough to win those wars. And in fact God's blessing was the reason those wars were won. However, God requires that his servants make an effort and use the resources He has provided them. Humans should not depend on those resources but they should definitely use those resources.
So for example 313 strong army of mostly untrained Muslim men (including children and elderly) fought a 1000 strong army of well trained soldiers. And Muslims were all willing to be martyred in that battle. And the enemies of Islam should have easily won. No doubt the Muslims made an effort that day. But no doubt also that it as not their effort that granted them victory against huge numbers.
For it is reported a huge windstorm blew against the enemies and they fell from their horses and Muslims claimed to see the angels as they killed the enemies of Islam. Thus Muslims were victorious in that first war.
So yes God's blessing is enough but no doubt effort is necessary. But in all this no non-Muslim was forced to convert. The war was fought in self-defense and was not used as a tool to convert people.
tariqkhwaja
Jihad Against Terrorism
The way mosques were destroyed or converted to Churches in Spain is enough evidence to debunk your second and third claims.
But I don't hold that against Christianity because we should not evaluate a religion based on how it is followed today but rather how it was followed by its founders. I don't see, therefore, the reason why people have wasted time quoting Muslim atrocities today.
It would be reasonable for all to have the same standard.
first we must all thank god and thank the first folower for fighting for god because thy give the security of the first folowers to regroupe th quran and to regroupe the hadith and evry parts of the quran
pls you must look how the world was
huuge empire distroying the world and slaver evry other and islam stop alot of them like persan , roman , egyptian , ,,,
and the enemy was not crisiatinity or anny other religion ther was no enemy but it just to give the acces to islam to other nations
ans islam give the freedom of religion to the crisitian and jews eathe tro convert or to stay some of the new folowers when thy enter to some contrys thy fond the crisitian without e chursh and thy built e church to the cristian like in egypt and the simple poove is the million of cristian and jews in the arabick world who exist there from the time of islam
read aboute the crusades and how thy deal with the muslims and how thy trow all them from the walls od the citys
pls you must look how the world was
huuge empire distroying the world and slaver evry other and islam stop alot of them like persan , roman , egyptian , ,,,
and the enemy was not crisiatinity or anny other religion ther was no enemy but it just to give the acces to islam to other nations
ans islam give the freedom of religion to the crisitian and jews eathe tro convert or to stay some of the new folowers when thy enter to some contrys thy fond the crisitian without e chursh and thy built e church to the cristian like in egypt and the simple poove is the million of cristian and jews in the arabick world who exist there from the time of islam
read aboute the crusades and how thy deal with the muslims and how thy trow all them from the walls od the citys
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
I doubt very much that the spread of Islam equates to a belief in Islam.
however it does seem to require people to accept established ideas with out argument or thought.
I suspect the politico/social aspect is accepted before the faith aspect, by which time it is too late to turn back with out punishment.
however it does seem to require people to accept established ideas with out argument or thought.
I suspect the politico/social aspect is accepted before the faith aspect, by which time it is too late to turn back with out punishment.
But not enough to spread Islam peacefully without wars...
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Throughout the world you can find abandoned Christian churches.
"Church going" is in decline at an increasing rate. To some extent this is offset by growth in certain Christian denominations in a number of countries. However the trend is distinctly downward.
It was mentioned that Spanish Mosques were turned into Churches, it is also true that many churches had been turned into Mosques. This is continuing today in the UK where many redundant churches are now Mosques. This has nothing to do with "Force" it is simply people using suitable buildings. The same was true in Spain when the Caliphate was defeated, their now redundant Mosques were simply reused.
Where there is Growth, either Muslim or Christian, this if fed, mostly, by the less well educated populations that still cling to a need for the older certainties of faith. This is particularly true where people have little other hope of mitigating their suffering.
Faith does not depend on ignorance and suffering... but it certainly helps.
"Church going" is in decline at an increasing rate. To some extent this is offset by growth in certain Christian denominations in a number of countries. However the trend is distinctly downward.
It was mentioned that Spanish Mosques were turned into Churches, it is also true that many churches had been turned into Mosques. This is continuing today in the UK where many redundant churches are now Mosques. This has nothing to do with "Force" it is simply people using suitable buildings. The same was true in Spain when the Caliphate was defeated, their now redundant Mosques were simply reused.
Where there is Growth, either Muslim or Christian, this if fed, mostly, by the less well educated populations that still cling to a need for the older certainties of faith. This is particularly true where people have little other hope of mitigating their suffering.
Faith does not depend on ignorance and suffering... but it certainly helps.
How come?!
Did you even read my "second and third claims"?
You're right!
Their atrocities then are more than enough!
tariqkhwaja
Jihad Against Terrorism
It was enough. Look Mark2020 if we are going to go in circles then there is no point to this discussion. Let me repeat:
First War
313 Muslims participants
0 followers converted forcibly in war
Second War
700 Muslim participants
0 followers converted forcibly in war
Third War
1500 Muslim participants
0 followers converted forcibly in war
Fourth War (which was not really a war because the enemies surrendered immediately)
10,000 Muslim participants
0 followers converted forcibly in war. All enemies given freedom to practice their religion and forgiven for all their trespasses against Muslims. As a result the enemies joined Islam. Is this forcing? Is this conversion by sword?
That is the time of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) (I think I may have skipped a couple of wars). Not a single instance of conversion by sword. Rather there were many continously trying to force people to LEAVE Islam. If you can quote me 10 instances of people who forcibly left Islam during the first 13 years of persecution I would be so shocked. Ovary speared, children split in front of their parents and vice versa (two cames on each side and split). Still they didn't leave Islam. What sword was keeping them bound to the faith?
Son of Mary had 12 primary disciples of which at least 4 sold him out!
First War
313 Muslims participants
0 followers converted forcibly in war
Second War
700 Muslim participants
0 followers converted forcibly in war
Third War
1500 Muslim participants
0 followers converted forcibly in war
Fourth War (which was not really a war because the enemies surrendered immediately)
10,000 Muslim participants
0 followers converted forcibly in war. All enemies given freedom to practice their religion and forgiven for all their trespasses against Muslims. As a result the enemies joined Islam. Is this forcing? Is this conversion by sword?
That is the time of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) (I think I may have skipped a couple of wars). Not a single instance of conversion by sword. Rather there were many continously trying to force people to LEAVE Islam. If you can quote me 10 instances of people who forcibly left Islam during the first 13 years of persecution I would be so shocked. Ovary speared, children split in front of their parents and vice versa (two cames on each side and split). Still they didn't leave Islam. What sword was keeping them bound to the faith?
Son of Mary had 12 primary disciples of which at least 4 sold him out!
I don't care about these wars. I was referring to wars like those that swept the whole North Africa through Spain.
But they didn't form armies and attack the world!
tariqkhwaja
Jihad Against Terrorism
Read the OP. In fact just read the title.
"Does Islam need sword to spread?"
Answer is "no" as proven from previous post. You are asking a different question which is "Did Islam spread by sword". Answer is still no as per my previous post. You are asking "later on did Islam spread by sword". And answer is still no. The rulers spread to various countries and an Islamic empire was established as the wars of self-defence required aggressing rulers be toppled. But people were given full freedom of religion after the conquest. However, the fairness and justice with which Islamic rulers ruled converted those people to Islam. Similar (though less so) to the case of the victory of Mecca referred to in my previous post.
Indonesia where conquests never took place is another example of this. Will you then open your eyes?
"Does Islam need sword to spread?"
Answer is "no" as proven from previous post. You are asking a different question which is "Did Islam spread by sword". Answer is still no as per my previous post. You are asking "later on did Islam spread by sword". And answer is still no. The rulers spread to various countries and an Islamic empire was established as the wars of self-defence required aggressing rulers be toppled. But people were given full freedom of religion after the conquest. However, the fairness and justice with which Islamic rulers ruled converted those people to Islam. Similar (though less so) to the case of the victory of Mecca referred to in my previous post.
Indonesia where conquests never took place is another example of this. Will you then open your eyes?
Your previous post?
Are you kidding?
This proves nothing.
How did Islam spread from Egypt through Spain?
Refer to one of my previous posts in this thread to see how Islam entered Indonesia:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2625539-post21.html
nameless
The Creator
the same for temples of hindus and buddhists in indian subcontinent ... it is enough to prove islam has spread in such a dirty manner. The spread of islam is the most shameful event to happen in entire history.
Last edited:
tariqkhwaja
Jihad Against Terrorism
The Hindu side of the story is quite incomplete in this regard. Let it be understood that Islam was spread in India via initial trade routes. Hindu rulers began persecuting Muslims which forced Muslim rulers to attack India therewith. Still none were forced to convert as evidenced by the fact that a Hindu majority remained in pre-partition India during the Muslim rule over them.
In fact Hindus were active advisors in the councils of these kings. In any case I would not vouchsafe for the rulers who invaded India as I do not believe they were Divinely Guided in their conquests.
Only in the first 30 years after the death of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) were Muslims ruled by Divine Caliphate.
nameless
The Creator
you should provide real sources to prove there were serious killings of muslims by hindu rulers.
you are so brilliant !! mughals only conquered half of india, other half is to be excluded. During partition atleast 1/3 of the india's land area was given to the muslims, means 1/3 of indias population were muslims. So in those places where mughals ruled it should be the muslims the majority.
Persecution of Hindus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When there is enough records to prove forced conversions by muslims, attempting to disprove it using population statistics is a juvenile thing to do.
anyway, the syllabus taught in pakistan is just incredible !! They have explanation for murdering, raping, looting and etc.
It is well known to everyone that king aurangazeb in his final days felt very bad about himself for he persecuted a lot of hindus. The manner mulsims treat minorities in pakistan in present days is enough to prove those mughal periods were bloody.
silly reasoning, Britishers ruled india having indians as soldiers and officers, would this mean that they were peaceful to indians?
And it all started with this 'holy prophet'.
Last edited: