Does Islam Need the Sword to Spread?

[tariqkhwaja]

Assalamualaikum.

Indonesia. An example sufficient to refute any arguments that Islam needed the sword to spread.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

No it just needs Abu Ghraib and it spreads like wildfire.

 

[Man of Faith]

When you give Christianity a level playing field, which is welcome in Indonesia, even though the persecution hasn’t stopped completely, Christianity thrives, because people want to know God and Christianity is the way that I accomplish that.

“More surprising, though, is the boom in Christianity — officially Indonesia's second largest faith and a growing force throughout Asia. Indeed, the number of Asian Christian faithful exploded to 351 million adherents in 2005, up from 101 million in 1970, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, based in Washington, D.C.”

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1982223,00.html#ixzz1ZmJPFib5

 

[DreadFish]

When you give Christianity a level playing field, which is welcome in Indonesia, even though the persecution hasn’t stopped completely, Christianity thrives, because people want to know God and Christianity is the way that I accomplish that.

“More surprising, though, is the boom in Christianity — officially Indonesia's second largest faith and a growing force throughout Asia. Indeed, the number of Asian Christian faithful exploded to 351 million adherents in 2005, up from 101 million in 1970, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, based in Washington, D.C.”

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1982223,00.html#ixzz1ZmJPFib5

What does that have to do with the topic of the thread?

 

[tariqkhwaja]

When you give Christianity a level playing field, which is welcome in Indonesia, even though the persecution hasn’t stopped completely, Christianity thrives, because people want to know God and Christianity is the way that I accomplish that.

“More surprising, though, is the boom in Christianity — officially Indonesia's second largest faith and a growing force throughout Asia. Indeed, the number of Asian Christian faithful exploded to 351 million adherents in 2005, up from 101 million in 1970, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, based in Washington, D.C.”

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1982223,00.html#ixzz1ZmJPFib5

Christianity saw a surge in membership following the decline in Islamic values 1400 years after the demise of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). This was supported by vast funding of churches from people of colonies that invaded Asia and Africa. I don't deny this fact of history.

I must say though that this does not lend any credibility to Christianity which has had to fight materialism within itself. Majority is not authority as a follower of Jesus should be well aware.

My point was only that Islam did not need the sword to spread. Islam spread in Indonesia without any known conquests. In fact I believe Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world.

I have always believed that conversions to Islam were due to the new conquerers high moral values when they conquered Iran, Iraq, Spain, etc. People fell in love with their new rulers and converted. The conquests did not lead to mass conversions by force as is alleged. Rather, as is exemplified by the Indonesian example, it was the excellent character and great moral values of Muslims that converted.

 

[Pegg]

Assalamualaikum.

Indonesia. An example sufficient to refute any arguments that Islam needed the sword to spread.

what do you think would happen if Islam didnt require strict adherence by those born into the faith?

Do you think it would still thrive, or would people be more inclined to leave it?

 

[tariqkhwaja]

what do you think would happen if Islam didnt require strict adherence by those born into the faith?

Do you think it would still thrive, or would people be more inclined to leave it?

I don't really know. There are lots of ifs and buts but I prefer not to go into those. Is there a specific reason you ask this question?

 

[Pegg]

I don't really know. There are lots of ifs and buts but I prefer not to go into those. Is there a specific reason you ask this question?

well muslims have a very high birth rate. Even here in our country (australia) they are the group with the highest birth rate, so I wonder if a lot of the increase is due to the children born to muslim parents as opposed to people who have converted to Islam.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

well muslims have a very high birth rate. Even here in our country (australia) they are the group with the highest birth rate, so I wonder if a lot of the increase is due to the children born to muslim parents as opposed to people who have converted to Islam.

As far as Islam in Arabia is concerned conversions there happened over a short period (maximum of 100 years) making Islam the dominant religion in too little time for this hypothesis to be reasonable.

However, I must say that having children is a strategy I feel employed by Islam to increase the amount of Muslims, i.e. increasing the number of preachers of the faith.

 

[Pegg]

As far as Islam in Arabia is concerned conversions there happened over a short period (maximum of 100 years) making Islam the dominant religion in too little time for this hypothesis to be reasonable.

i wasnt really talking about back when isalm was first introduced....however, we know that islam introduced itself in a very violent way forcing the inhabitants to either accept it or die

so there wasnt much choice back there

However, I must say that having children is a strategy I feel employed by Islam to increase the amount of Muslims, i.e. increasing the number of preachers of the faith.

its well known that the children of muslims are automatically muslim... its almost as if there is no choice and that being a muslim is more a culture then a religion....or perhaps i should say it is a religion built around a culture. So in view of that, its easy to see why islam has such a large increase.

How do you know if a muslim is in the faith because they want to be and because they love God?

 

[Badran]

i wasnt really talking about back when isalm was first introduced....however, we know that islam introduced itself in a very violent way forcing the inhabitants to either accept it or die

so there wasnt much choice back there

This might be easier if you actually knew what you were taking about. Who's "we"?

"We" don't know that. I know that thats nonsense. In some cases, or points in history, that supposedly happened, yes. Generalizing this however, like i said, is nonsense.

its well known that the children of muslims are automatically muslim...

Does this mean that you as a Christian will be raising your kids as Hindus for example?

So in view of that, its easy to see why islam has such a large increase.

No, its not. The fact that there is more than one reason at play doesn't make it easy. That easy feeling is possibly just you trying to comfort yourself and dismiss certain things.

How do you know if a muslim is in the faith because they want to be and because they love God?

How do you know if a Christian is in the faith because they want to be and because they love god?

By the way, this doesn't actually address the OP's point.

 

[Photonic]

Indoctrinating children into a religion should be seen as child abuse.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Indoctrinating children into a religion should be seen as child abuse.

Indoctrinating children into atheism is another form of that abuse then. This is a foolish argument.

The OP gives the irrefutable evidence that Islam did not need the sword to spread. If someone thinks it is due to high quantity of offspring that Islam spread that is their choice. The point remains that "Islam did not need the sword to spread". So if anyone still holds that view they should refute the Indonesian argument. There are several others.

 

[Pegg]

This might be easier if you actually knew what you were taking about. Who's "we"?

"We" don't know that. I know that thats nonsense. In some cases, or points in history, that supposedly happened, yes. Generalizing this however, like i said, is nonsense.

The historical facts show that after Muhammad gained power in Medina, the place he fled to as a religious refugee from Mecca, he authorized the execution of his critics...the worst case being the Jewish tribe of Koraiza, some 700 men were beheaded in the market place for not submitting to Islam....their children and wives became slaves. If that is not 'by the sword' then i dont know what is.

And after Muhammad’s death Islam continued to be spread by warfare as the account of the army of Charles Martel, son of Pepin and grandfather of Charlemagne, in France in 732 attests.

Does this mean that you as a Christian will be raising your kids as Hindus for example?

of course i will raise them as christians, but what they choose to do with their knowledge of christianity when they are older will be up to them. They are free to leave the religion if they want to....the fact is, you are only a christian if you are 'practicing' the religion.

How do you know if a Christian is in the faith because they want to be and because they love god?

By the way, this doesn't actually address the OP's point.

Jesus said you will recognize a true disciple 'by their fruits'

In other words, a true christian will practice their faith... there are a lot of people who were raised in christianity but who chose not to take up the religion themselves. They are free to walk away because there is 'no compulsion' as the Quran states. The bible is the same in that way, there is no compulsion in christianity either.

 

[Onkara]

The OP gives the irrefutable evidence that Islam did not need the sword to spread. If someone thinks it is due to high quantity of offspring that Islam spread that is their choice. The point remains that "Islam did not need the sword to spread". So if anyone still holds that view they should refute the Indonesian argument. There are several others.

The problem is generalisation. There are many instances where the sword was used and where it was not. The OP makes a general question "Does islam need the sword to spread?" then it refutes itself with a single case.

I could equally say "Are all men stupid?" No because Einstein wasn't, so prove me wrong.

This thread will just go on without a solution because the real motive is not to find an answer

 

[Badran]

The historical facts show that after Muhammad gained power in Medina, the place he fled to as a religious refugee from Mecca, he authorized the execution of his critics...the worst case being the Jewish tribe of Koraiza, some 700 men were beheaded in the market place for not submitting to Islam....their children and wives became slaves. If that is not 'by the sword' then i dont know what is.

Okay, i'll assume again, like i did earlier, that you simply don't know what your taking about because its either that or you're deliberately misrepresenting the supposed facts. First, this is not a historical "fact", its a controversial issue of which differing accounts exist. According to some accounts this is not the case, but a mere invention.

Second, saying "he authorized the execution of his critics" is fascinating to put it lightly. This was supposed to be an issue of tribes in conflict with each other, and one tribe taking a certain side etc... This was a conflict, not Muhammad being an overlord authorizing executions at his leisure because those people weren't Muslims. They were supposedly executed for treason.

Finally, i'll tell you what 'Islam was spread by the sword' is, its making everyone who is not a Muslim choose between their lives and between becoming Muslims in general, and that being, in fact, not only the primary source, but the ONLY source or reason for people converting to Islam, according to that statement of yours which i was quoting.

And after Muhammad’s death Islam continued to be spread by warfare as the account of the army of Charles Martel, son of Pepin and grandfather of Charlemagne, in France in 732 attests.

Are you, or are you not aware that non-Muslims lived under Muslim rule? How does that work? Weren't they supposed to be threatened to either die or become Muslims?

of course i will raise them as christians, but what they choose to do with their knowledge of christianity when they are older will be up to them. They are free to leave the religion if they want to....the fact is, you are only a christian if you are 'practicing' the religion.

Feel free to share at any point how is this supposed to be different. The only point where there is a difference is the supposed apostasy punishment, which is not enforced in most Muslim countries today.

Jesus said you will recognize a true disciple 'by their fruits'

In other words, a true christian will practice their faith... there are a lot of people who were raised in christianity but who chose not to take up the religion themselves. They are free to walk away because there is 'no compulsion' as the Quran states. The bible is the same in that way, there is no compulsion in christianity either.

I'll suppose then that i misunderstood what you were saying, and that in fact the same applies in this regard to both Muslims and Christians.

 

[Badran]

The problem is generalisation. There are many instances where the sword was used and where it was not. The OP makes a general question "Does islam need the sword to spread?" then it refutes itself with a single case.

I could equally say "Are all men stupid?" No because Einstein wasn't, so prove me wrong.

This thread will just go on without a solution because the real motive is not to find an answer

Or it was simply addressing the arguments of those who like to say that Islam wouldn't have survived, or have been embraced by people if not for its supposed spread by the sword.

 

[Onkara]

Or it was simply addressing the arguments of those who like to say that Islam wouldn't have survived, or have been embraced by people if not for its supposed spread by the sword.

Hi Badran
Then why not start with that OP and discuss it?

Secondly that stance is unrealistic because Islam is here now. Again all of this is really just a façade to something else. It is like plucking leaves off a tree but never cutting the roots of the issue. Entertaining for some I guess?

 

[Badran]

Hi Badran
Then why not start with that OP and discuss it?

Hi Onkara

I agree it wasn't clear enough (and of course i might be wrong in my understanding of it). The reason i interpreted it that way is because of his usage of the word 'need'.

Secondly that stance is unrealistic because Islam is here now. Again all of this is really just a façade to something else. It is like plucking leaves off a tree but never cutting the roots of the issue. Entertaining for some I guess?

Indeed, i agree.

There were instances where such things happened, and there were and are instances where people embrace Islam because they want to. Trying to come to generalized conclusions based on either is certainly fruitless and rather not speaking well regarding the intentions of such 'discussion'.

 

[Gaura Priya]

Don't forget the Philippines and the rest of Southeast Asia!

Although I am a Filipino who is full Canadian (born and raised in Canada), I have to say that I do like the fact that the Philippines took to Islam, and apparently Christianity, rather peacefully. If it wasn't for Magellan coming to the islands, the whole Philippine islands would have become Muslim.