Muhammad's Sword !!!

[kai]

Muslim scholars explained there are five kinds of jihad fi sabilillah (struggle in the cause of God):[1]

Jihad of the heart/soul (jihad bin nafs/qalb) is an inner struggle of good against evil in the mind, through concepts such as tawhid.
Jihad by the tongue (jihad bil lisan) is a struggle of good against evil waged by writing and speech, such as in the form of dawah (proselytizing), Khutbas (sermons), et al.
Jihad by the pen and knowledge (jihad bil qalam/ilm) is a struggle for good against evil through scholarly study of Islam, ijtihad (legal reasoning), and through sciences (such as medical sciences).
Jihad by the hand (jihad bil yad) refers to a struggle of good against evil waged by actions or with one's wealth, such as going on the Hajj pilgrimage (seen as the best jihad for women), taking care of elderly parents, providing funding for jihad, political activity for furthering the cause of Islam, stopping evil by force, or espionage.
Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif) refers to qital fi sabilillah (armed fighting in the way of God, or holy war).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

So now my question is that if Islam was mainly spread by the sword, we'll say about 95% of the time, then I have a question.

If this is the case, and more than half the people became muslim by sheer force of arms, then why does Islam continue to spread?

When the Islamic empires fell, and the muslims no longer possessed such strength of arms, why didn't the spread of ISlam come to a grinding halt?

If Islam was mainly spread by force then by definition of that, it should never have spread at all. If it was spreading like that, we would probably be surprised at the number of people who would rather die than accept such a religion.

Is it that difficult to believe that a person would actually accept Islam of their own accord?

I'm going to tell a littel known story about Muhammad (saw) and the way he used to invite the heads of a state to Islam.

Muhammad would have letters dictated and sent to the king or ruler of a state, country, or province. The letter contained an introduction of who he was, and what his mission consisted of. Also it contained an invite to accept Islam. He would send a delegation of muslims to that ruler in peace and bearing gifts. He usually received one of three types of responses:

A) The ruler would reject Islam. However, it was with kindness. In these cases an alliance would be formed by way of a treaty, basically stating that neither the muslims nor the kuffar of that state would raise arms and enmity against one another. They would thereafter enjoy a peaceful relationship, whereby trade and other business could take place.

B) The ruler would reject Islam. However, it was with hatred. Usually in those cases the envoy would be brutally murdered and an army raised to meet Muhammad (saw) and the rest of the muslims. We know that in those days, and even now if a peaceful group of delegated are sent to another country and they are killed, then that is a declaration of war. Obviously, the muslims raise their army and meet for battle. Majority of the time the muslims were victorious in battle. After a leader has been soundly defeated a few things must take place. Either the ruler accepts Islam, he rejects Islam but must come to an agreement whereby they cannot raise another army against the muslims, or they refuse both terms and is either killed in order to remove all threat of future retaliation, or is exiled. MOst likely the result of a sound defeat is that the defeated country comes under muslim rule. This happened alot. I guess this is where people get this idea that Islam is such a bad religion that the only way people will join it is under threat of death.

C) The ruler would accept islam. Whne this happened usually the entire country became muslim without ever drawing one sword. This happened more often then people know. The rulers of countries back then were highly religious alot of times. A ruler would consult with their viziers and clergy, and come to the conclusion that they believed Muhammad was who he claimed to be. The reason that this approach was taken of addressing the head of state, was because it worked with the various tribes of arabia. If the chieftain of a tribe were to accept Islam then it was a good chance that his fellow tribesmen who trusted and respected the leader, would follow his lead. This is why the letters were dictated and sent to a ruler rather than approach the citizens of a country. It was also respectful. If the citizens are converted then this will make a bad impression on the ruler. It will seem like sneaking and it makes a problem in the country. There could be much civil disturbance, and if enough citizens are disturbing the peace then it can make everyone elses life miserable. If enough people become muslim in that way, then they could possibly be heavily persecuted or killed in their own homeland.

What I am saying is that Islam has had its share of wars. During the time of the prophet and the four rightly guided khalifs, no one went to the extremes and killed civilians, or misinterprated whole verses and therby conquered lands and people unjustly. However, as time went by the muslims were further removed from the justice of Islam, and because they became enamoured of worldy wealth and power, corruption began to take place. Early in the era of the prophet, even the enemies of Islam respected it and the muslims for their overall just behaviour. Even in war their enemies knew that muslims were not going to commit war crimes and excesses, and they admired them for it as much as an enemy can admire you. When the muslims lost sight of what was important and placed value on worldy matters, justice and peace were replaced by tyranny and oppression. This is not true of all Islamic empires but it is true of some of them.

 

[michel]

I was tempted to answer your point from my point of view; mine would have been based on the appeal of belonging to "a group" whose lives are controlled by strict rules; there can be great comfort for those who join the "mass regimentation".

If I was living in poverty and squallor, I might well be tempted to feel jealous of the 'rich West' and the soft easy option they face in life, compared to mine. If a Mullah came and told me that becoming a follower of Islam, I would be helping bring people of my own kind out of poverty, I might well be tempted to 'join the group'. Sociology is a great believer in 'safety in numbers'. That may be an element. I am sure too that the disaffected migrants of Africa to France (who expected to become part of 'the affluent West') may well feel very bitter about finding no work; I am sure that there is a great deal of resentment from that quarter.

But here is an interesting read:-http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6298613
slam and Extremism: 'Reformation' in the Making?

by Deborah Amos
All Things Considered, October 18, 2006 · In the Muslim world, radicals, reformers, activists and academics are all struggling to reshape their religion. The debates often take place in cyberspace, or on Arabic-language satellite broadcasts.
Other Muslims are trying to rescue their faith from extremism. Some scholars say it's an "Islamic Reformation," borrowing from a Christian era that lasted more than 100 years -- and was often violent and bloody.
For centuries, distinguished scholars interpreted scripture and law for the Muslim community. But that authority, at least among Sunni Muslims, has eroded.
Bernard Heykal, a professor of Islamic history at New York University, says the current condition is also shaped by mass literacy and the rise of a middle class.
"Today you have large number of Arabs and Muslims who can pick up books, read them for themselves," Heykal says, "and also have the consciousness and sense of personal autonomy and independence to think that they can interpret these sources and texts for themselves."
The result is what Heykal calls "interpretative chaos."
And that can lead to increasingly selective interpretations -- as in some cases, in which some followers can cite violent passages and ignore the complexity of the Koran.
These new interpretations get wide distribution on Web sites, says religious scholar Reza Aslan.
"Some of these fatwas are being issued by very legitimate authorities," Aslan says. "And some of them are being issued by wackos who have never studied Islam in any way."
And, Aslan says, because there is no central religious authority, it's up to individual Muslims to decide what to follow.
One place that has felt the profound ripple is Denmark, as was seen in the violent response to cartoons of Islam's Mohammed, which were published in a Danish newspaper last year.
That instance led many Muslims to debate what a proper response was -- and how their religion should be portrayed in the modern world.
Heykal says it is part of a battle of ideas -- one that could continue for decades.
"You have a lot of creative and innovative thought going on in the Muslim world," he says, "but it happens to be much more of the dark variety that you talk about, than it is the light, I think."
"But Muslims have to feel some confidence. And at the moment, there is a communal sense that they're under attack -- and that they are engaged in a fight for the very survival of the religion."

 

[Smoke]

What I am saying is that Islam has had its share of wars. During the time of the prophet and the four rightly guided khalifs, no one went to the extremes and killed civilians, or misinterprated whole verses and therby conquered lands and people unjustly.

This is simply not true, and I have to question the values of anyone who can talk of "justly" conquering lands and people who were doing no harm to the conquerors.

However, even if it were true, what relevance would it have today? Today there is no justice, no peace, and no mercy. Muslim movements operate by terrorism, death threats, and intimidation. Muslims can be found by the thousands to march in protest of the American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, but how many can be found to march in protest of 9/11? How many protest the bombings in Madrid and London? The riots in France? It was a Muslim who said that not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslims. Islam from its earliest days has been both political and violent. Early Islam was spread by the sword and by intimidation; modern Islam seeks to spread by the bomb and by intimidation. All we hear from even the mildest Muslim leaders is that no one must think, because of Islamic violence, that Islam is violent.

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

I was tempted to answer your point from my point of view; mine would have been based on the appeal of belonging to "a group" whose lives are controlled by strict rules; there can be great comfort for those who join the "mass regimentation".

If I was living in poverty and squallor, I might well be tempted to feel jealous of the 'rich West' and the soft easy option they face in life, compared to mine. If a Mullah came and told me that becoming a follower of Islam, I would be helping bring people of my own kind out of poverty, I might well be tempted to 'join the group'. Sociology is a great believer in 'safety in numbers'. That may be an element. I am sure too that the disaffected migrants of Africa to France (who expected to become part of 'the affluent West') may well feel very bitter about finding no work; I am sure that there is a great deal of resentment from that quarter.

But here is an interesting read:-http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6298613
slam and Extremism: 'Reformation' in the Making?

by Deborah Amos
All Things Considered, October 18, 2006 · In the Muslim world, radicals, reformers, activists and academics are all struggling to reshape their religion. The debates often take place in cyberspace, or on Arabic-language satellite broadcasts.
Other Muslims are trying to rescue their faith from extremism. Some scholars say it's an "Islamic Reformation," borrowing from a Christian era that lasted more than 100 years -- and was often violent and bloody.
For centuries, distinguished scholars interpreted scripture and law for the Muslim community. But that authority, at least among Sunni Muslims, has eroded.
Bernard Heykal, a professor of Islamic history at New York University, says the current condition is also shaped by mass literacy and the rise of a middle class.
"Today you have large number of Arabs and Muslims who can pick up books, read them for themselves," Heykal says, "and also have the consciousness and sense of personal autonomy and independence to think that they can interpret these sources and texts for themselves."
The result is what Heykal calls "interpretative chaos."
And that can lead to increasingly selective interpretations -- as in some cases, in which some followers can cite violent passages and ignore the complexity of the Koran.
These new interpretations get wide distribution on Web sites, says religious scholar Reza Aslan.
"Some of these fatwas are being issued by very legitimate authorities," Aslan says. "And some of them are being issued by wackos who have never studied Islam in any way."
And, Aslan says, because there is no central religious authority, it's up to individual Muslims to decide what to follow.
One place that has felt the profound ripple is Denmark, as was seen in the violent response to cartoons of Islam's Mohammed, which were published in a Danish newspaper last year.
That instance led many Muslims to debate what a proper response was -- and how their religion should be portrayed in the modern world.
Heykal says it is part of a battle of ideas -- one that could continue for decades.
"You have a lot of creative and innovative thought going on in the Muslim world," he says, "but it happens to be much more of the dark variety that you talk about, than it is the light, I think."
"But Muslims have to feel some confidence. And at the moment, there is a communal sense that they're under attack -- and that they are engaged in a fight for the very survival of the religion."

Point taken. However I dont think that the muslims in poor countries are alshing out because they feela jealousy of the west. I think they lash out because their life is bad period. It isnt bad in relation to the good life that western people lead. I think we have come to the meat of the issue here. People in that region of the world are angry I think at their government because it just doesnt give a damn about them. I think the disnufication of the whole group of people gives rise to factions that see no other way to deal with their current plight other than heinous violence. It is easy to just say they are wackos who are just crazy people. If you walk in on Truth killing my cat, it will be easy for me to make him out to be an animal killer and a cat hater. You will believe my claims because you saw him do that. However, what I didnt tell you was that the reason he killed my cat is because he saw me kill two of his dogs yesterday. In light of the cause, his reaction doesnt seem so ridiculous. Do you understancd my analogy? We do not know the real causes as to why these people feel the need to act so violently to things. We cannot accept that the media is being 100% forthcoming with the truth of all things that are happening. So I think before we judge the reaction we should maybe try to analyse the cause. I think it is silly to dismis the root cause as being the religion of Islam itself. The real root cause is the way they are so war torn in many places in the middle east. Until we wake up and the neighborhood we live in is now reduced to rubble, and we still have to try and act normal, we can never truly understand the mindset of a people. I am not saying that everything they do is justified. What I am saying is that firstly I dont know what they do since I dont live with them. Secondly, I think we should try to view things from thier side of the fence before we condemn them all as pyschopaths.

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

This is simply not true, and I have to question the values of anyone who can talk of "justly" conquering lands and people who were doing no harm to the conquerors.

However, even if it were true, what relevance would it have today? Today there is no justice, no peace, and no mercy. Muslim movements operate by terrorism, death threats, and intimidation. Muslims can be found by the thousands to march in protest of the American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, but how many can be found to march in protest of 9/11? How many protest the bombings in Madrid and London? The riots in France? It was a Muslim who said that not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslims. Islam from its earliest days has been both political and violent. Early Islam was spread by the sword and by intimidation; modern Islam seeks to spread by the bomb and by intimidation. All we hear from even the mildest Muslim leaders is that no one must think, because of Islamic violence, that Islam is violent.

Why are you so sure that muslims are terrorists? Is it because of 9/11? If so, why are you so sure that it was muslims who committed the act? Did you see them? It is because the media has made the claim that it was the muslims who cooridinated such a detailed and concise attack. Do you have any other evidence that the muslims are terrorists outside of media reports? If not, then I urge you to really think about why you feel this way. Is it from personal experience? Have you or your loved ones been threatened in any way? I really would like you to answer these questions before you give me a rebuttal.

If you rely only on the media reports for your point of view, then is it a possibilty that all could not be as it appears? Is there any chance that the information you have received about muslims and terrorists could be even slightly wrong?

 

[Smoke]

"But Muslims have to feel some confidence. And at the moment, there is a communal sense that they're under attack -- and that they are engaged in a fight for the very survival of the religion."

But they aren't under attack. They are beginning to be criticized, but they're not under attack. Everyone else is under attack.

When London subway attacks were made, the British and political leaders were very careful to tiptoe around the issue of Muslim violence. Helen Broaden of the BBC forbade reporters to mention "terrorists" (much less Muslim terrorists), directing them to use the word "bombers" instead -- and BBC stories already written with the word "terrorists" were revised online. British Muslim leaders made their usual pro forma condemnations of terrorism, and then proceeded to plead for understanding -- not of the average Muslim, mind you, but of the terrorists, who, after all, had every reason to be angry with Britain. All too many Britons nodded approvingly; Richard Ingrams even wrote that non-Muslim Britons ought to change their behavior so as to earn Muslim approval. Live as a dhimmi or you deserve to die -- that's the message, not of Muslim extremists, but of university-educated Westerners.

That's what we've come to in the West. When some fanatic explodes a bomb, we immediately begin to investigate what we have done to deserve to be bombed.

Even George Bush piously assures us that Islam is a religion of peace, and keeps up his friendship with the Saudi, even as the latter finance extremist masjids in Europe.
Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the head of the Muslim Council of Britain, said that death was "too easy" for Salman Rushdie, and has praised Hamas suicide bombers as "freedom fighters," yet he's widely regarded as a "moderate" Muslim -- as indeed he is, which says a great deal. Blair's government had no problem handing a knighthood to Sacranie, or appointing extremists like Tariq Ramadan and Inayat Bunglawala to government advisory positions, and yet Blair is one of the men most hated by Muslims.

At every opportunity, Westerners make haste to insist that Islam is a religion of peace, and strive to understand Muslim terrorists. Yet Bernard Heykal is concerned that Muslims feel they're under attack. It boggles the mind. It would be laughable, if we weren't so eager to lap it up.

If we in the West insist on being that stupid, we deserve to live as dhimmis -- and we will.

 

[Smoke]

Why are you so sure that muslims are terrorists? Is it because of 9/11? If so, why are you so sure that it was muslims who committed the act? Did you see them? It is because the media has made the claim that it was the muslims who cooridinated such a detailed and concise attack. Do you have any other evidence that the muslims are terrorists outside of media reports? If not, then I urge you to really think about why you feel this way. Is it from personal experience? Have you or your loved ones been threatened in any way? I really would like you to answer these questions before you give me a rebuttal.

When Muslim terrorists claim responsibility for terrorist acts, is that just media deception? Is CNN holding their families hostage, threatening to behead them, unless the innocent Muslims lie about their involvement in terrorist acts? What would it take for you to believe that many Muslims are involved in terrorist acts?

If you rely only on the media reports for your point of view, then is it a possibilty that all could not be as it appears? Is there any chance that the information you have received about muslims and terrorists could be even slightly wrong?

I'm careful to get my information from a variety of sources, not just American sources, but European and Middle Eastern as well. I'm a regular reader of new reports by Muslims. It's not as if I were watching Fox News.

But the question is ludicrous to begin with. What does media mean, but books, television, magazines, newspapers, and the internet? Where, besides the media, does anyone seek information? The Psychic Friends Network?

 

[kai]

So now my question is that if Islam was mainly spread by the sword, we'll say about 95% of the time, then I have a question.

If this is the case, and more than half the people became muslim by sheer force of arms, then why does Islam continue to spread?

When the Islamic empires fell, and the muslims no longer possessed such strength of arms, why didn't the spread of ISlam come to a grinding halt?

If Islam was mainly spread by force then by definition of that, it should never have spread at all. If it was spreading like that, we would probably be surprised at the number of people who would rather die than accept such a religion.

Is it that difficult to believe that a person would actually accept Islam of their own accord?

I'm going to tell a littel known story about Muhammad (saw) and the way he used to invite the heads of a state to Islam.

Muhammad would have letters dictated and sent to the king or ruler of a state, country, or province. The letter contained an introduction of who he was, and what his mission consisted of. Also it contained an invite to accept Islam. He would send a delegation of muslims to that ruler in peace and bearing gifts. He usually received one of three types of responses:

A) The ruler would reject Islam. However, it was with kindness. In these cases an alliance would be formed by way of a treaty, basically stating that neither the muslims nor the kuffar of that state would raise arms and enmity against one another. They would thereafter enjoy a peaceful relationship, whereby trade and other business could take place.

B) The ruler would reject Islam. However, it was with hatred. Usually in those cases the envoy would be brutally murdered and an army raised to meet Muhammad (saw) and the rest of the muslims. We know that in those days, and even now if a peaceful group of delegated are sent to another country and they are killed, then that is a declaration of war. Obviously, the muslims raise their army and meet for battle. Majority of the time the muslims were victorious in battle. After a leader has been soundly defeated a few things must take place. Either the ruler accepts Islam, he rejects Islam but must come to an agreement whereby they cannot raise another army against the muslims, or they refuse both terms and is either killed in order to remove all threat of future retaliation, or is exiled. MOst likely the result of a sound defeat is that the defeated country comes under muslim rule. This happened alot. I guess this is where people get this idea that Islam is such a bad religion that the only way people will join it is under threat of death.

C) The ruler would accept islam. Whne this happened usually the entire country became muslim without ever drawing one sword. This happened more often then people know. The rulers of countries back then were highly religious alot of times. A ruler would consult with their viziers and clergy, and come to the conclusion that they believed Muhammad was who he claimed to be. The reason that this approach was taken of addressing the head of state, was because it worked with the various tribes of arabia. If the chieftain of a tribe were to accept Islam then it was a good chance that his fellow tribesmen who trusted and respected the leader, would follow his lead. This is why the letters were dictated and sent to a ruler rather than approach the citizens of a country. It was also respectful. If the citizens are converted then this will make a bad impression on the ruler. It will seem like sneaking and it makes a problem in the country. There could be much civil disturbance, and if enough citizens are disturbing the peace then it can make everyone elses life miserable. If enough people become muslim in that way, then they could possibly be heavily persecuted or killed in their own homeland.

What I am saying is that Islam has had its share of wars. During the time of the prophet and the four rightly guided khalifs, no one went to the extremes and killed civilians, or misinterprated whole verses and therby conquered lands and people unjustly. However, as time went by the muslims were further removed from the justice of Islam, and because they became enamoured of worldy wealth and power, corruption began to take place. Early in the era of the prophet, even the enemies of Islam respected it and the muslims for their overall just behaviour. Even in war their enemies knew that muslims were not going to commit war crimes and excesses, and they admired them for it as much as an enemy can admire you. When the muslims lost sight of what was important and placed value on worldy matters, justice and peace were replaced by tyranny and oppression. This is not true of all Islamic empires but it is true of some of them.

I contend that Islam followed in the wake of the sword the military expansion brought Islam with it , many parts of the world were still occupied until the 20th century and the fall of the Ottomans, so only time will tell if Islam stays the course, further more i see nothing out of the ordinary in this, its par for the course as empires go, what is untoward however is the denial of military expansion,empires and colonialism in Islam. No i am sure people have,and will convert to Islam of their own accord for all sorts of reasons its a nice story unfortunately it sugar coats real life somewhat!John Esposito writes that Muhammad's use of warfare in general was alien neither to Arab custom nor to that of the Hebrew prophets, as both believed that God had sanctioned battle with the enemies of the Lord. here is a link to another thread you may be interested in, debating islamic military expansion etc
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=35747

 

[michel]

But they aren't under attack. They are beginning to be criticized, but they're not under attack. Everyone else is under attack.

Oh, I agree with you; no doubt.

Why are you so sure that muslims are terrorists? Is it because of 9/11? If so, why are you so sure that it was muslims who committed the act? Did you see them? It is because the media has made the claim that it was the muslims who cooridinated such a detailed and concise attack. Do you have any other evidence that the muslims are terrorists outside of media reports? If not, then I urge you to really think about why you feel this way. Is it from personal experience? Have you or your loved ones been threatened in any way? I really would like you to answer these questions before you give me a rebuttal.

If you rely only on the media reports for your point of view, then is it a possibilty that all could not be as it appears? Is there any chance that the information you have received about muslims and terrorists could be even slightly wrong?

Unfortunately, history tells us that it is Muslims who are terrorists - and they are proud to admit it. The security saervices in the U.K have busted a few cells, and have thwarted various planned attacks.

The Muslims interviewed on television were almost unanimous that they would never reveal any plot to terrorise if they were aware of one, because "Muslims must help each other".

I am sorry, but in my book, Muslims living in England have their prime alligience to the country in which they live. To not tell the authorities of impending attacks of which they are aware is, at best, collusion to terrorism, and treatcherous behaviour.

If they cannot respect the law of the land, they ought not to be living here.

However I dont think that the muslims in poor countries are alshing out because they feela jealousy of the west. I think they lash out because their life is bad period

Possibly, but the effect is the same; it makes them angry at us.

 

[Sahar]

Islam from its earliest days has been both political and violent. Early Islam was spread by the sword and by intimidation; modern Islam seeks to spread by the bomb and by intimidation.

-First of all; u can force a person to do anything except embracing a religion or an ideology!
And from history we can know that no ideology or state can stand for a long time, if it is founded by mere brute force.
-Regarding Islam: Islam started in 610 in Arabia and now after fourteen centuries, it has overtaken all other religions in its speed of propagation, and it is obvious now that it is not the sword that helps it to spread so fast in this modern period of ours!

What history says:

 

[Sahar]

Conquest of Mecca:In 628 the Meccan tribe of Quraish and the Muslim community in Medina signed a truce called the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. Despite improved relations between Mecca and Medina after the signing of the Treaty of Hudaybiyya, a 10 year peace was to be broken by Quraish who, with their allies, the tribe of Bakr, attacked the tribe of Khuza'ah who were allies of the Muslims and it was possibly not known to the Pagan tribes at the time. However, this broke the treaty which forbad any fighting between Muslim, Quraysh and their allies. Abu sufyan, the leader of the Quraish in Mecca, was aware that the balances were now tilted in Muhammad's favour, went to Medina to restore the treaty but Muhammad refused to accommodate him and Abu Sufyan returned to Mecca empty handed. An approximately 10,000 strong Muslim army marched towards Mecca which soon surrendered peacefully. Muhammad demanded that the pagan idols around the Ka'aba be destroyed. Abu Sufyan converted to Islam and Muhammad announced
"Who enters the house of Abu Sufyan will be safe, who lays down arms will be safe, who locks his door will be safe".
Then Muhammad turning to the people said:
"O ye Quraish, what do you think of the treatment that I should accord you.?"
And they said, "Mercy, O Prophet of Allah. We expect nothing but good from you."
Thereupon the Holy Prophet declared: "I speak to you in the same words as Joseph spoke to his brothers. This day there is no reproof against you; Go your way, for you are free."
Muhammad's prestige grew after the surrender of the Meccans. Embassies from all over Arabia came to Medina to submit to him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_Mecca


Comment: can somebody explain to me how the meccan peolple embraced Islam by the sowrd here??!
Peace be upon You Prohet Muhammad!

 

[Sahar]

Jerusalem:
In 637, after a prolonged siege of Jeruslaem, the Muslims took the city. `Umar was given the key to the city by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Sophronius, and was invited to pray at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Historically, The reason behind this welcoming reception from Sophronius was that-according to the biblical prophecies known to the Christian church in Jerusalem at that time-he learned of a time when a poor-but just and powerful-man will come riding a donkey (because of his extremely austere lifestyle) along with his right hand after a prolonged battle in Jeruslem (this description perfectly matched the image of `Umar at the time of his arrival) and will actually prove to be a protector and an ally to the Christians of Jerusalem.In agreement with these prophecies, Umar-out of respect to the Christians of Jerusalem-chose to pray some distance from the Church, so as not to endanger its status as a Christian temple. In the end, `Umar's compassionate actions made most people there convert to Islam, this was the beginning of Islam's spread in Jerusalem and its surrounding cities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%60Umar_ibn_al-Khatt%C4%81b

"When `Umar entered Jerusalem at the head of a Muslim army in 638 CE, just six years after the Prophet's death, he entered the city on foot, as a gesture of humility in a city sacred to Muslims, Christians, and Jews. There was no bloodshed. There were no massacres or forced conversions." Idris Tawfik

Comment: Well...no comment; The greatness and justice of Umar ibn el-Khattab cannot be described by words.

 

[Sahar]

Muslim conquest of Egypt:

At the commencement of the Muslim conquest of Egypt, Egypt was part of the Byzantine Empire with its capital in Constantinople.
The orthodox christianity of the Byzantines held to the doctrine of Christ having two natures, one divine and one human. In Egypt however the christological position of Monophysitism prevailed, which supported the doctrine of Christ having only one nature, the divine. Although the Christian Council of Chalcedon, held in 451, had ruled in favor of the orthodox position, Egypt had remained a hotbed of Monophysite sentiment. So, with the restoration of Byzantine political control in 629, Emperor Heraclius began persecuting the Monophysites, expelling their patriarch.
It was in the context of this state of affairs that an army of some 4,000 Arabs, led by Amr ibn al-As, was sent by the Caliph Umar to spread Islam in the land of the ancient pharaohs. The Arabs crossed into Egypt from Palestine in December 639 and advanced rapidly into the Nile Delta. The imperial garrisons retreated into the walled towns, where they successfully held out for a year or more. But the Arabs sent for reinforcements and the invading army, joined by another 12,000 men in 640, defeated a Byzantine army at the Battle of Heliopolis. Amr next proceeded in the direction of Alexandria, which was surrendered to him by a treaty signed on November 8, 641. The Thebaid seems to have surrendered with scarcely any opposition.
The ease with which this valuable province was wrenched from the Byzantine Empire appears to have been due to the treachery of the governor of Egypt, Cyrus, Melchite (i.e., Byzantine/Chalcedonian Orthodox, not Coptic) Patriarch of Alexandria, and the incompetence of the generals of the Byzantine forces. Cyrus had persecuted the local Coptic Christians. He is one of the authors of monothelism, a seventh century heresy, and some supposed him to have been secretly a convert to Islam.
The Muslims were assisted by some Copts, who resented the persecutions of the Byzantines, and of these some turned to Islam. Others sided with the Byzantines, hoping that they would provide a defense against the Arab invaders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Egypt

In addition:
"He (Amr ibn al-As) also ordered that the Muslims had a duty to protect the rights of the Christians living in Egypt.
It was to be another two centuries before the population of Egypt became Muslim. To this day, there are nearly seven million Christians living there. For 14 centuries they have lived in peace with their Muslim neighbors and they were never forced to convert." Idris Tawfik


Comment: we do notice that the egyptian christians were persecuted (by other sect of christians actually) to change their denomination but still the same religion and iam wondering what would happen if they were forced to embrace completely another religion (Islam), we didn't hear about any persecution here or any massacre when muslims opened Egypt and ruled it?!!!

 

[Sahar]

Indonesia:

Indonesia has around 450 million Muslims, which is more than the population of all the Arab countries put together. In fact, Arabs count for only around 18 percent of all Muslims. By far the greatest concentration of the world's 1.1 billion Muslims lives in Southeast Asia. Islam has been deeply rooted there for centuries.​

No Muslim armies ever went there. In fact, the story of Islam being brought there is quite marvelous and well worth telling.

It was brought not by soldiers, but by merchants. The honesty and integrity of these first few Muslim merchants, whose names are celebrated as part of Indonesia's history, so impressed the people that they wanted to be like them. In closing up their businesses each day at prayer times and in the fair and just way they dealt with their customers, these Muslim merchants drew many to Islam. Their message and their fame spread quickly until millions had embraced their religion.​

Please, somebody tell me; where is the sword here??!!!​

 

[Sahar]

modern Islam seeks to spread by the bomb and by intimidation.

I have a question; do u think they; those muslims may mange to spread it by "the bomb and by intimidation"???

 

[kai]

Jerusalem:
In 637, after a prolonged siege of Jeruslaem, the Muslims took the city. `Umar was given the key to the city by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Sophronius, and was invited to pray at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Historically, The reason behind this welcoming reception from Sophronius was that-according to the biblical prophecies known to the Christian church in Jerusalem at that time-he learned of a time when a poor-but just and powerful-man will come riding a donkey (because of his extremely austere lifestyle) along with his right hand after a prolonged battle in Jeruslem (this description perfectly matched the image of `Umar at the time of his arrival) and will actually prove to be a protector and an ally to the Christians of Jerusalem.In agreement with these prophecies, Umar-out of respect to the Christians of Jerusalem-chose to pray some distance from the Church, so as not to endanger its status as a Christian temple. In the end, `Umar's compassionate actions made most people there convert to Islam, this was the beginning of Islam's spread in Jerusalem and its surrounding cities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%60Umar_ibn_al-Khatt%C4%81b

"When `Umar entered Jerusalem at the head of a Muslim army in 638 CE, just six years after the Prophet's death, he entered the city on foot, as a gesture of humility in a city sacred to Muslims, Christians, and Jews. There was no bloodshed. There were no massacres or forced conversions." Idris Tawfik

Comment: Well...no comment; The greatness and justice of Umar ibn el-Khattab cannot be described by words.

amazing how you have completely ignored the prolonged seige do you think no one died no bloodshed, the city surrendered!

 

[kai]

Indonesia:

Indonesia has around 450 million Muslims, which is more than the population of all the Arab countries put together. In fact, Arabs count for only around 18 percent of all Muslims. By far the greatest concentration of the world's 1.1 billion Muslims lives in Southeast Asia. Islam has been deeply rooted there for centuries.​

No Muslim armies ever went there. In fact, the story of Islam being brought there is quite marvelous and well worth telling.

It was brought not by soldiers, but by merchants. The honesty and integrity of these first few Muslim merchants, whose names are celebrated as part of Indonesia's history, so impressed the people that they wanted to be like them. In closing up their businesses each day at prayer times and in the fair and just way they dealt with their customers, these Muslim merchants drew many to Islam. Their message and their fame spread quickly until millions had embraced their religion.​

Please, somebody tell me; where is the sword here??!!!​

The introduction of Islam to the islands was not always peaceful, however. As Islamized port towns undermined the waning power of the east Javanese Hindu/Buddhist Majapahit kingdom in the sixteenth century, Javanese elites fled to Bali, where over 2.5 million people kept their own version of Hinduism alive. Unlike coastal Sumatra, where Islam was adopted by elites and masses alike, partly as a way to counter the economic and political power of the Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms, in the interior of Java the elites only gradually accepted Islam, and then only as a formal legal and religious context for Javanese spiritual culture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Indonesia

 

[kai]

Muslim conquest of Egypt:

At the commencement of the Muslim conquest of Egypt, Egypt was part of the Byzantine Empire with its capital in Constantinople.
The orthodox christianity of the Byzantines held to the doctrine of Christ having two natures, one divine and one human. In Egypt however the christological position of Monophysitism prevailed, which supported the doctrine of Christ having only one nature, the divine. Although the Christian Council of Chalcedon, held in 451, had ruled in favor of the orthodox position, Egypt had remained a hotbed of Monophysite sentiment. So, with the restoration of Byzantine political control in 629, Emperor Heraclius began persecuting the Monophysites, expelling their patriarch.
It was in the context of this state of affairs that an army of some 4,000 Arabs, led by Amr ibn al-As, was sent by the Caliph Umar to spread Islam in the land of the ancient pharaohs. The Arabs crossed into Egypt from Palestine in December 639 and advanced rapidly into the Nile Delta. The imperial garrisons retreated into the walled towns, where they successfully held out for a year or more. But the Arabs sent for reinforcements and the invading army, joined by another 12,000 men in 640, defeated a Byzantine army at the Battle of Heliopolis. Amr next proceeded in the direction of Alexandria, which was surrendered to him by a treaty signed on November 8, 641. The Thebaid seems to have surrendered with scarcely any opposition.
The ease with which this valuable province was wrenched from the Byzantine Empire appears to have been due to the treachery of the governor of Egypt, Cyrus, Melchite (i.e., Byzantine/Chalcedonian Orthodox, not Coptic) Patriarch of Alexandria, and the incompetence of the generals of the Byzantine forces. Cyrus had persecuted the local Coptic Christians. He is one of the authors of monothelism, a seventh century heresy, and some supposed him to have been secretly a convert to Islam.
The Muslims were assisted by some Copts, who resented the persecutions of the Byzantines, and of these some turned to Islam. Others sided with the Byzantines, hoping that they would provide a defense against the Arab invaders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Egypt

In addition:
"He (Amr ibn al-As) also ordered that the Muslims had a duty to protect the rights of the Christians living in Egypt.
It was to be another two centuries before the population of Egypt became Muslim. To this day, there are nearly seven million Christians living there. For 14 centuries they have lived in peace with their Muslim neighbors and they were never forced to convert." Idris Tawfik


Comment: we do notice that the egyptian christians were persecuted (by other sect of christians actually) to change their denomination but still the same religion and iam wondering what would happen if they were forced to embrace completely another religion (Islam), we didn't hear about any persecution here or any massacre when muslims opened Egypt and ruled it?!!!

your post reinforces the fact that Egypt was invaded and conquered you may have to look a bit deeper to find out about fatalities, and perhaps this link will give you a better idea of coptic resistance to Muslim overlordship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_early_Arab_Egypt

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

I contend that Islam followed in the wake of the sword the military expansion brought Islam with it , many parts of the world were still occupied until the 20th century and the fall of the Ottomans, so only time will tell if Islam stays the course, further more i see nothing out of the ordinary in this, its par for the course as empires go, what is untoward however is the denial of military expansion,empires and colonialism in Islam. No i am sure people have,and will convert to Islam of their own accord for all sorts of reasons its a nice story unfortunately it sugar coats real life somewhat!John Esposito writes that Muhammad's use of warfare in general was alien neither to Arab custom nor to that of the Hebrew prophets, as both believed that God had sanctioned battle with the enemies of the Lord. here is a link to another thread you may be interested in, debating islamic military expansion etc
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=35747

I am not interested in sugar-coating anything, and I don't think I have been anyway. I also nver denied that muslims did have an army, nor did I deny that there was muslim expansion. So now I'm confused about your point.

I don't care if people dont think Islam is a PC religion because it isn't. Whether people like it or agree with it doesn't matter to me. I contend that Islam is not this horrible thing that only causes harm rather than any benefit. Now if we wanna talk about what certain groups of muslims are doing then I guess we can talk about that. That might be worth a discussion although I haven't the slightest idea why some muslims are so violence prone.