Is there a complete list of countries where Islam spread by the sword?

[paarsurrey]

Mate, are you serious? Your own Wikipedia citation references the spread of Islam & Arab culture as being the result of both peace and violence. The very link you quote from argues the point of view you're trying and failing to disprove!!

I never said that Wikipedia covers all the aspects.
If they had been converted to Islam under gun-point they would reverted to their religion as soon as the grip have been loosened. They remained steadfast on Islam centuries after. Right?
Regards

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I never said that Wikipedia covers all the aspects.

But you are the one denying that Islam was ever spread through violent means. Something the link you cited mentions.

If they had been converted to Islam under gun-point they would reverted to their religion as soon as the grip have been loosened. They remained steadfast on Islam centuries after. Right?
Regards

Except for several factors:

1. Traces of Pagan religions would have been systematically destroyed to prevent people reverting to the Old Gods.
2. Traces of non-Arabic cultures would have been Islamised by the Arabs and Islamo-Arabic culture would have been pressed onto conquered peoples.
3. Children would have been indoctrinated from a young age - much like they are now - about Islam; at an age before they can learn to think critically and question aspects of Islam.
4. Apostasy is heavily frowned upon in Islamic societies. Today it's met with disproportionately harsh punishments such as imprisonment or death. Under conditions like that, its understandable that somebody would stay converted in order to keep their head on their shoulders.

 

[muhammad_isa]

But you are the one denying that Islam was ever spread through violent means...

I think it's impossible to say that people aren't violated in war. So it would be most likely, imo, if some tribes/nations were intimidated into becoming Muslims.

..however, that is NOT our duty to Almighty God .. that would be mankind's weakness. War and pride etc. often does not bring out the best in people, irrespective of religious belief

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I think it's impossible to say that people aren't violated in war. So it would be most likely, imo, if some tribes/nations were intimidated into becoming Muslims.

..however, that is NOT our duty to Almighty God .. that would be mankind's weakness. War and pride etc. often does not bring out the best in people, irrespective of religious belief

Thank you. At least you admit it's even a possibility that Islam was spread through violence and intimidation. That's a breath of fresh air on this thread.

What of Mohammed though? He also spread Islam through intimidation and violence - are you saying Allah's messenger could also have gotten it wrong? Especially in light of the numerous verses that talk about fighting against non-believers?

 

[muhammad_isa]

What of Mohammed though? He also spread Islam through intimidation and violence - are you saying Allah's messenger could also have gotten it wrong? Especially in light of the numerous verses that talk about fighting against non-believers?

No .. I am not saying that Muhammad, peace be with him, did anything wrong .. I'm saying that people who are at war are most likely to behave in an undefined manner .. not in accordance with their beliefs..

It's a simple statement to say that 'Islam was spread by the sword' .. could you also say that 'modern capitalism was spread by the atom bomb' ?

Too simplistic .. Almighty God knows our individual intentions .. who is guilty and who is not from amongst mankind of ALL faiths .. He knows who begins aggression and who defends themselves.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

No .. I am not saying that Muhammad, peace be with him, did anything wrong .. I'm saying that people who are at war are most likely to behave in an undefined manner .. not in accordance with their beliefs..

It's a simple statement to say that 'Islam was spread by the sword' .. could you also say that 'modern capitalism was spread by the atom bomb' ?

You could. Whether it's true or not is a separate issue so if you want to start a new thread and posit that as an argument I'm sure people would participate. I'd be interested to see how that goes.

Too simplistic .. Almighty God knows our individual intentions .. who is guilty and who is not from amongst mankind of ALL faiths .. He knows who begins aggression and who defends themselves.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing over the potential morality or lack thereof of spreading Islam by violence (that is yet another separate position) - I'm just arguing that it happened. Paarsurrey is arguing that it did not.

 

[paarsurrey]

Thank you. At least you admit it's even a possibility that Islam was spread through violence and intimidation. That's a breath of fresh air on this thread.
What of Mohammed though? He also spread Islam through intimidation and violence - are you saying Allah's messenger could also have gotten it wrong? Especially in light of the numerous verses that talk about fighting against non-believers?

There is no possibility for that. Religion never spreads by sword, because sword cannot convince one at heart. Muhammad told very clearly that one can become muslim when one's heart witnesses the truth and then one declares with one's tongue of the ONENESS of G-d and the prophet-hood of Muhammad:

One can become Muslim when one's heart witnesses the truth and then one declares with one's tongue of the ONENESS of G-d and the prophet-hood of Muhammad:
“Anas reported that the Holy Prophet said: There is no one who testifies truly from his heart that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, but Allah prohibits for him the fire of hell.”
(Mishkat al-Masabih, Book of Faith, ch. 1, sec. 1)

“A person becomes a Muslim by leaving all that contradicts the meaning of the following Testification of Faith, believing in the heart and declaring with the tongue”
http://alsunna.org/beconvinced.htm

To become a Muslim one must simply pronounce the Shahadah (Declaration of Faith) through his/her heart and tongue with sincerity and conviction.
“ASH-HADU ANLA ELAHA ILLA-ALLAH WA ASH-HADU ANNA MOHAMMADAN ABDUHU WA RASOOLUHU”.
The English translation is:
"I bear witness that there is no deity worthy to be worshipped but Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger".
http://www.aaicw.org/old-aaicw/how_to_be_a_muslim.html
Regards

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

There is no possibility for that. Religion never spreads by sword, because sword cannot convince one at heart.

Unless one believes that one's own gods or version of God either abandoned them or weren't strong enough to stop Allah from helping the Muslims win.

Using this logic, Mecca was never ever Islamised because the Muslims rolled in, killed people and smashed the images of Pagan gods in the Kaaba. They didn't convert peacefully, they used force - which you say invalidates a conversion because the sword cannot take the place of one's own heart. Which means Mecca is not the holiest site in Islam because it does not belong to the Muslims. We Pagans will have our city back, thank you very much

Muhammad told very clearly that one can become muslim when one's heart witnesses the truth and then one declares with one's tongue of the ONENESS of G-d and the prophet-hood of Muhammad:

One can become Muslim when one's heart witnesses the truth and then one declares with one's tongue of the ONENESS of G-d and the prophet-hood of Muhammad:
“Anas reported that the Holy Prophet said: There is no one who testifies truly from his heart that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, but Allah prohibits for him the fire of hell.”
(Mishkat al-Masabih, Book of Faith, ch. 1, sec. 1)

“A person becomes a Muslim by leaving all that contradicts the meaning of the following Testification of Faith, believing in the heart and declaring with the tongue”
http://alsunna.org/beconvinced.htm

To become a Muslim one must simply pronounce the Shahadah (Declaration of Faith) through his/her heart and tongue with sincerity and conviction.
“ASH-HADU ANLA ELAHA ILLA-ALLAH WA ASH-HADU ANNA MOHAMMADAN ABDUHU WA RASOOLUHU”.
The English translation is:
"I bear witness that there is no deity worthy to be worshipped but Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger".
http://www.aaicw.org/old-aaicw/how_to_be_a_muslim.html
Regards

It would be the best thing for everyone if the Muslims who have forced conversion on others at the end of a sword or gun down the centuries had taken this to heart. But they did not.

So what does this make people who were forced to recite the Shahadah under threat of violence or even death? Hypocrites? Doesn't that mean they're destined for the fire for trying to make the best of a bad situation and doing what Allah's soldiers forced them to do?

You've flip-flopped from one untenable position to the next.

First you said Islam was never spread by the sword and mindlessly copy & pasted Wikipedia entries while deliberately ignoring the examples others gave you where Islam did advance through force of arms - and now you're saying all those forced conversions down the years are false & invalid because the sword cannot convince the heart.

 

[paarsurrey]

Unless one believes that one's own gods or version of God either abandoned them or weren't strong enough to stop Allah from helping the Muslims win.
Using this logic, Mecca was never ever Islamised because the Muslims rolled in, killed people and smashed the images of Pagan gods in the Kaaba. They didn't convert peacefully, they used force - which you say invalidates a conversion because the sword cannot take the place of one's own heart. Which means Mecca is not the holiest site in Islam because it does not belong to the Muslims. We Pagans will have our city back, thank you very much
It would be the best thing for everyone if the Muslims who have forced conversion on others at the end of a sword or gun down the centuries had taken this to heart. But they did not.
So what does this make people who were forced to recite the Shahadah under threat of violence or even death? Hypocrites? Doesn't that mean they're destined for the fire for trying to make the best of a bad situation and doing what Allah's soldiers forced them to do?
You've flip-flopped from one untenable position to the next.
First you said Islam was never spread by the sword and mindlessly copy & pasted Wikipedia entries while deliberately ignoring the examples others gave you where Islam did advance through force of arms - and now you're saying all those forced conversions down the years are false & invalid because the sword cannot convince the heart.

Your sentence that I have coloured in magenta is not clear. Please elaborate.
G-d did not abandon Muhammad, he was successful in every field, and this is a clear and brilliant sign , as mentioned in Quran of his being a truthful prophet of G-d and the Meccan idolaters were wrong in not accepting him rather opposing him tooth and nail:

[58:21]Certainly those who oppose Allah and His Messenger will be among the lowest.
[58:22]Allah has decreed: ‘Most surely I will prevail, I and My Messengers.’ Verily, Allah is Powerful, Mighty.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=58&verse=21

And that is the open secret of Muhammad being successful.
Note: Nobody has yet provided a complete list with consensus of countries where Islam spread by sword as is commonly alleged superficially.
Regards

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Your sentence that I have coloured in magenta is not clear. Please elaborate.

Okay. Ancient peoples viewed their gods through the lens of what happened in life. Pagans would have viewed their gods as being happy with them if the harvest was good, fish were plentiful, women survived childbirth, and if they won battles and/or wars. Conversely, they would have viewed their gods as angry or upset if the opposite happened. Not in every case, but if it happened consistently, or if a one-off event was sufficiently bad. Losing a war might be a sign that one or more gods had turned their backs on the people; or that their gods had abandoned them; or that their gods were angry with the people for whatever reason; or that their gods were not as powerful as Allah.

Some people might even have seen such conflicts on Earth in the context of a war between Allah and their own gods - and that a Muslim victory signified that Allah had gained the upper hand against their gods - or even won outright.

Replace 'gods' with 'version of God' and you'd have the Judeo-Christian & Zoroastrian perspectives since they would have believed they worshipped a different God from that of Muslims - in some cases in spite of what Muslims told them. Just like nowadays. Some might have seen God had brought the Muslims to them to show them his new truth - I suspect Muslims would like the sound of this claim.

Note: Nobody has yet provided a complete list with consensus of countries where Islam spread by sword as is commonly alleged superficially.
Regards

We don't need to. You're the one claiming Islam didn't spread as the result of violence at all. Showing you even one nation or people that was introduced to Islam through violent means defeats your argument. And we've shown you more than one nation/people that had this happen to them.

 

[McBell]

Note: Nobody has yet provided a complete list with consensus of countries where Islam spread by sword as is commonly alleged superficially.
Regards

The only time moving the goal posts is necessary is when your original argument has been defeated.
This is at least the THIRD time you have moved the goal posts...

when you changed from Islam to your specific sect of Islam
when you went from one to a complete list
when you went from just a complete list to complete list with consensus​

You have lost your argument.
Several times.

 

[paarsurrey]

Okay. Ancient peoples viewed their gods through the lens of what happened in life. Pagans would have viewed their gods as being happy with them if the harvest was good, fish were plentiful, women survived childbirth, and if they won battles and/or wars. Conversely, they would have viewed their gods as angry or upset if the opposite happened. Not in every case, but if it happened consistently, or if a one-off event was sufficiently bad. Losing a war might be a sign that one or more gods had turned their backs on the people; or that their gods had abandoned them; or that their gods were angry with the people for whatever reason; or that their gods were not as powerful as Allah.
Some people might even have seen such conflicts on Earth in the context of a war between Allah and their own gods - and that a Muslim victory signified that Allah had gained the upper hand against their gods - or even won outright.
Replace 'gods' with 'version of God' and you'd have the Judeo-Christian & Zoroastrian perspectives since they would have believed they worshipped a different God from that of Muslims - in some cases in spite of what Muslims told them. Just like nowadays. Some might have seen God had brought the Muslims to them to show them his new truth - I suspect Muslims would like the sound of this claim.

You are simply wrong.
Paganism or Greek polytheism, which is your religion, is different from the Idolater-ism of the Meccans, they believed in Allah and that the Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac etc were their ancestors, they also believed in angels.
Regards

 

[McBell]

You are simply wrong.

As if you are in any position to know?
You are unable to accept the facts about Islam.
Why should you be given any credibility about Pagan beliefs when you cannot even get your own straight?

Paganism or Greek polytheism, which is your religion, is different from the Idolater-ism of the Meccans, they believed in Allah and that the Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac etc were their ancestors, they also believed in angels.

I would ask you to support this claim, but given your history of blatant denial of fact...

 

[paarsurrey]

The only time moving the goal posts is necessary is when your original argument has been defeated.
This is at least the THIRD time you have moved the goal posts...

when you changed from Islam to your specific sect of Islam
when you went from one to a complete list
when you went from just a complete list to complete list with consensus​

You have lost your argument.
Several times.

My request was:
Kindly give a complete list of countries where you see sword in action:
Quote:

• "Only for conversion to religion Islam.
• There was no other factor involved, absolutely none, for sure none,certainly none.
• There were no earlier conversion to Islam before that in that country.
• If there were earlier conversions , before you see sword in action; what were the clear motives of converts behind?
• Were the converts since then "under sword" constantly till now that they could not revert to their previous religion? If not, why do they stick to Quran/Islam/Muhammad even now?"Unquote.

Do you mean that it is impossible for those who allege that "Islam spread by the sword" to prepare a complete and consensus list with the above conditions (this was mentioned in Post #2 of this thread)? Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

As if you are in any position to know?
You are unable to accept the facts about Islam.
Why should you be given any credibility about Pagan beliefs when you cannot even get your own straight?
I would ask you to support this claim, but given your history of blatant denial of fact...

I was making things clear for those who believe that paganism and idolatarism of Meccans of the time of Muhammad were identical. Muhammad's father, who died before his birth, his name was Abdullah, the servant of Allah.
So, Meccans believed in Allah. Right? Please
Regards

 

[McBell]

My request was:
Kindly give a complete list of countries where you see sword in action:
Quote:

• "Only for conversion to religion Islam.
• There was no other factor involved, absolutely none, for sure none,certainly none.
• There were no earlier conversion to Islam before that in that country.
• If there were earlier conversions , before you see sword in action; what were the clear motives of converts behind?
• Were the converts since then "under sword" constantly till now that they could not revert to their previous religion? If not, why do they stick to Quran/Islam/Muhammad even now?"Unquote.

Do you mean that it is impossible for those who allege that "Islam spread by the sword" to prepare a complete and consensus list with the above conditions (this was mentioned in Post #2 of this thread)? Please
Regards

Continue ignoring what you dislike.
It only hurts your own credibility.

 

[paarsurrey]

The only time moving the goal posts is necessary is when your original argument has been defeated.
This is at least the THIRD time you have moved the goal posts...

when you changed from Islam to your specific sect of Islam
when you went from one to a complete list
when you went from just a complete list to complete list with consensus​

You have lost your argument.
Several times.

A complete list has to be with consensus, if no, please just give the complete list. Other qualifications made the goalposts nearer to one another. Did one give any complete list?At least Mestemia did not provide one. Right?
Regards

 

[McBell]

A complete list has to be with consensus, if no, please just give the complete list. Other qualifications made the goalposts nearer to one another. Did one give any complete list? At At At least Mestemia did not provide one. Right?
Regards

your constant moving of the goal posts shows you have lost your argument.
plain and simple.

the fact is that a "complete list" is not required to show you are full of ****.
Only one single sample will do the job.
You have been presented more than one.
You lose.

Now all you are doing is revealing just how desperate you are to protect your fragile faith.

 

[Gharib]

"It is sometimes said that the Islamic religion was spread by conquest. The statement is misleading, though the spread of Islam was to a large extent made possible by the parallel processes of conquest and colonization. The primary war aim of the conquerors was not to impose the Islamic faith by force. The Qur'ân is explicit on this point: 'There is no compulsion in religion' (2:256). This was usually interpreted to mean that those who profess a monotheist religion and revere scriptures recognized by Islam as earlier stages of divine revelation may be permitted to practice their religions under the conditions imposed by the Islamic state and law. For those who were not monotheists and possessed no recognized scriptures, the alternatives were harsher, but there were few if any such in the regions ruled by the early Arab conquerors. The conquered peoples were given various inducements, such as lower rates of taxation, to adopt Islam, but they were not compelled to do so."

-Bernard Lewis, The Middle East

 

[YmirGF]

"It is sometimes said that the Islamic religion was spread by conquest. The statement is misleading, though the spread of Islam was to a large extent made possible by the parallel processes of conquest and colonization. The primary war aim of the conquerors was not to impose the Islamic faith by force. The Qur'ân is explicit on this point: 'There is no compulsion in religion' (2:256). This was usually interpreted to mean that those who profess a monotheist religion and revere scriptures recognized by Islam as earlier stages of divine revelation may be permitted to practice their religions under the conditions imposed by the Islamic state and law. For those who were not monotheists and possessed no recognized scriptures, the alternatives were harsher, but there were few if any such in the regions ruled by the early Arab conquerors. The conquered peoples were given various inducements, such as lower rates of taxation, to adopt Islam, but they were not compelled to do so."

-Bernard Lewis, The Middle East

Hehe... Do keep reading, Gharib. I think you will be mildly pleased at what the good Professor has to say. Hopefully you will take his criticisms kindly.