was islam spread by the sword ?

[take it or leave it]

hi friends

I have just finished reading a book on the history of islam It seems to me after reading the book, that islam was defiantly spread by the sword , there is no doubt about it , mohammed attacked his former home town for what ever reason and after that islam was spread across arabia as mohammed become a political leader,its well documented that Mohammed was involved in many battles.

Islam is often called the religion of peace and love by many muslims but I cant understand how a message of love and peace can by spread by violence.

What is the message of islam and was islam spread by the sword or not ?

If islam was spread by the sword , what message was it spreading

 

[tgnostic]

It's just that it's religious reverence. Where the various sects accomplish that ambition to follow each other's conscience and desires is hard to often know; love and peace come from the message of Mohammad's Koran, of an unknown date of birth and writing.

 

[Marble]

What is the message of islam and was islam spread by the sword or not ?

As for the message of Islam you have to ask a Muslim.
Was Islam spread by sword- I think it was. Muslim conquests

 

[Ilisrum]

Religion unifies people. Early Islam was as much a social and political entity as a religion. So yes, I think it's safe to say that Islam was spread by the sword, just as the Spanish conquistadors resorted to barbarism in their attempts to convert the natives of the Americas.

 

[Neophyte]

Yes, it certainly was. Is some counties it still is. Don't get me wrong, not all Muslims are killers but this religion does have a history of killing to spread it's doctorine. This is the main reason I could never be a memeber of it. I feel Mohammed was far from a good person, he took over and spread this religion by the "sword." Again, there are mant good people who are Muslim. I have Muslim friends that I respect very much. The religion itself it certainly not for me.

 

[TashaN]

hi friends

I have just finished reading a book on the history of islam It seems to me after reading the book, that islam was defiantly spread by the sword , there is no doubt about it , mohammed attacked his former home town for what ever reason and after that islam was spread across arabia as mohammed become a political leader,its well documented that Mohammed was involved in many battles.

Islam is often called the religion of peace and love by many muslims but I cant understand how a message of love and peace can by spread by violence.

What is the message of islam and was islam spread by the sword or not ?

If islam was spread by the sword , what message was it spreading

I hope you will take some time to read the following thread, and it might answer some of your questions.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/39491-muhammads-sword.html

If you have further questions please let me know. And by the way, don't judge a religion based on one book.

 

[839311]

And by the way, don't judge a religion based on one book.

Unless its the Koran.

My judgement, is that this book is somewhere in the top 5, of the list of documents which have caused the most damage to the human species.

 

[Cordoba]

Unless its the Koran.

My judgement, is that this book is somewhere in the top 5, of the list of documents which have caused the most damage to the human species.

Very unfair view

Check this site:

http://myfellowamerican.us

 

[Vendetta]

Look, Muhammad fought against the Quaraysh tribe, a tribe that sought to kill him because he was bringing a taboo religion (bringing monotheism back to Arabia) which perhaps in their view caused issues to their way of life. Thereafter, Islam spreading to North Africa, Syria, Turkey all the way to the Steppes of Mongolia (let's not forget China too).

I want to be fair to Muslims in that the inherent message of Islam is beautiful. Islam focuses on the significance of family, and oneness with God. However regardless of that message, many Muslim empires throughout the ages have not shown the illuminating words of the Holy Quran via personal action.

Muslims I know mention how noble Saladin was. Sure, he was wise in his own right, but he also overseen some slaughter of his own.

What about Timur "the lame" or Tamerlane? He killed many Indians.

What of the Almohads? The Turks?

Every religion has had their fair share of bloody history

 

[Caladan]

hi friends

I have just finished reading a book on the history of islam It seems to me after reading the book, that islam was defiantly spread by the sword , there is no doubt about it , mohammed attacked his former home town for what ever reason and after that islam was spread across arabia as mohammed become a political leader,its well documented that Mohammed was involved in many battles.

Islam is often called the religion of peace and love by many muslims but I cant understand how a message of love and peace can by spread by violence.

What is the message of islam and was islam spread by the sword or not ?

If islam was spread by the sword , what message was it spreading

There are a few major flaws in your post.
one is that you have read 'a book', and formed an opinion.
which book?
who wrote it?
a professor of which department and in which university?
where is he standing on the political map?

other major flaws are a lack of education about Muhammad, his tribe, the Quraysh, and the other tribes of Mecca and Medina.
It is a very limiting understanding of the Hejaz/Western Saudi Arabia during the 7th century, to cast aside the diplomatic treaties, the union of tribes, and the discussions Muhammad held with the other tribal leaders over the future of Mecca, Medina, and about settling the relations and feuds between the tribes of the area.
Muhammad was a leader who stood out in a desert and political landscape and which included other leaders in what is now Saudi Arabia, these leaders have debated Muhammad and have debated among themselves, they fought, negotiated, and had concerns over the fragile relations and alliances between the tribes.
therefore, taking out Muhammad out of this tribal and political frame is a bit surreal.

the fact that you focus only on Muhammad's era, and on the person himself, shows that you have perhaps read but ignored the major conquests under the four Caliphs, which of course were taken by a military spread, but were highly swift and successful because of the flexibility of the Muslim leadership. diplomacy, trade, education, maintaining a sophisticated class system which allows Egyptians, Berbers, North Africans and Persians into its aristocracy and its leadership.
Under the first Caliphates, Farsi architecture, the philosophy of Greece, and the higher sciences were blossoming. all these facts made Islam a very attractive option.

 

[beenie]

Excellent post. It's a shame that most of the qualities that attracted people to Islam back then are lacking now.

There are a few major flaws in your post.
one is that you have read 'a book', and formed an opinion.
which book?
who wrote it?
a professor of which department and in which university?
where is he standing on the political map?

other major flaws are a lack of education about Muhammad, his tribe, the Quraysh, and the other tribes of Mecca and Medina.
It is a very limiting understanding of the Hejaz/Western Saudi Arabia during the 7th century, to cast aside the diplomatic treaties, the union of tribes, and the discussions Muhammad held with with the other tribal leaders over the future of Mecca, Medina, and about settling the relations and feuds between the tribes of Arabia.
Muhammad was one leader, other leaders in what is now Saudi Arabia have debated him, and have debated each other, they all fought, negotiated, and had concerns over the fragile relations and alliances between the tribes.
therefore, taking out Muhammad out of this tribal and political frame is a bit surreal.

the fact that you focus only on Muhammad's era, and on the person himself, shows that you have perhaps read but ignored the major conquests under the four Caliphs, which of course were taken by a military spread, but were highly swift and successful because of the flexibility of these conquests. diplomacy, trade, education, maintaining a sophisticated class system which allows Egyptians, Berbers, North Africans and Persians into its leadership.
Under the Caliphates, Farsi architecture, the philosophy of Greece, and the higher sciences were blossoming. all these facts made Islam a very attractive option.

 

[Caladan]

Excellent post.

thank you ssainhu.

It's a shame that most of the qualities that attracted people to Islam back then are lacking now.

Even though I hear it quite often. its not entirely the case. as long as there is a functioning middle class in Muslim countries, a middle class which keeps its trade and which practices its religion, every of the other parties know where they stand. this includes trade, diplomacy, and its benefits for a stable economy.

 

[Nooj]

hi friends

I have just finished reading a book on the history of islam It seems to me after reading the book, that islam was defiantly spread by the sword , there is no doubt about it , mohammed attacked his former home town for what ever reason and after that islam was spread across arabia as mohammed become a political leader,its well documented that Mohammed was involved in many battles.

Islam is often called the religion of peace and love by many muslims but I cant understand how a message of love and peace can by spread by violence.

What is the message of islam and was islam spread by the sword or not ?

If islam was spread by the sword , what message was it spreading

Islam was a community of faith. When Muhammad died, he left it as a powerful political entity in Arabia. Islam expanded by conquest, beating other states around it. Aside from one instance (a rogue governor did it if I remember correctly), never in its meteoric rise did Muslims forcibly convert others to the faith. They always swept in, pummeled the infidel's armies and took over the state. So in one sense, yes Islam was spread by the sword. But in another sense, no.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Every religion has had their fair share of bloody history

I would say Most religions yes, but not all. In the prograss of Baha'i Faith which is the second most spread religion, not even one person was killed or forced to convert.

 

[YmirGF]

There are a few major flaws in your post.
one is that you have read 'a book', and formed an opinion.
which book?
who wrote it?
a professor of which department and in which university?
where is he standing on the political map?

other major flaws are a lack of education about Muhammad, his tribe, the Quraysh, and the other tribes of Mecca and Medina.
It is a very limiting understanding of the Hejaz/Western Saudi Arabia during the 7th century, to cast aside the diplomatic treaties, the union of tribes, and the discussions Muhammad held with the other tribal leaders over the future of Mecca, Medina, and about settling the relations and feuds between the tribes of the area.
Muhammad was a leader who stood out in a desert and political landscape and which included other leaders in what is now Saudi Arabia, these leaders have debated Muhammad and have debated among themselves, they fought, negotiated, and had concerns over the fragile relations and alliances between the tribes.
therefore, taking out Muhammad out of this tribal and political frame is a bit surreal.

the fact that you focus only on Muhammad's era, and on the person himself, shows that you have perhaps read but ignored the major conquests under the four Caliphs, which of course were taken by a military spread, but were highly swift and successful because of the flexibility of the Muslim leadership. diplomacy, trade, education, maintaining a sophisticated class system which allows Egyptians, Berbers, North Africans and Persians into its aristocracy and its leadership.
Under the first Caliphates, Farsi architecture, the philosophy of Greece, and the higher sciences were blossoming. all these facts made Islam a very attractive option.

A superb post, my friend. This reminded me of a book I just finished with about 2 weeks ago called, "The political language of Islam" by Professor Bernard Lewis of Princeton University.

Personally, I think Islam has got its less than stellar reputation due to the fact that Muhammad and many other Muslim leaders were very good at silencing opposition. In a similar way, arguments employing cultural relativism effectively neuter any critical judgments of previous regimes, unless, of course, when said arguments are applied to current regimes where there is no longer any excuse for anything - apparently.

 

[beenie]

thank you ssainhu.

You're welcome.

Even though I hear it quite often. its not entirely the case. as long as there is a functioning middle class in Muslim countries, a middle class which keeps its trade and which practices its religion, every of the other parties know where they stand. this includes trade, diplomacy, and its benefits for a stable economy.

This is true. I guess my experience comes more from South Asia (primarily Pakistan) where there was an excellent opportunity to establish a thriving economy (textiles, port city Karachi, new government, etc) and they made a complete mockery of everything they supposedly stand for. The middle class there is almost non-existent and stands little chance of improving conditions there. Corruption and extremism/feudal lords have completely destroyed that country's economy from the core. Same with Bangladesh, etc. They could learn a lot from a few of their Middle Eastern neighbors who have a thriving middle class.

 

[take it or leave it]

There are a few major flaws in your post.
one is that you have read 'a book', and formed an opinion.
which book?
who wrote it?
a professor of which department and in which university?
where is he standing on the political map?

other major flaws are a lack of education about Muhammad, his tribe, the Quraysh, and the other tribes of Mecca and Medina.
It is a very limiting understanding of the Hejaz/Western Saudi Arabia during the 7th century, to cast aside the diplomatic treaties, the union of tribes, and the discussions Muhammad held with the other tribal leaders over the future of Mecca, Medina, and about settling the relations and feuds between the tribes of the area.
Muhammad was a leader who stood out in a desert and political landscape and which included other leaders in what is now Saudi Arabia, these leaders have debated Muhammad and have debated among themselves, they fought, negotiated, and had concerns over the fragile relations and alliances between the tribes.
therefore, taking out Muhammad out of this tribal and political frame is a bit surreal.

the fact that you focus only on Muhammad's era, and on the person himself, shows that you have perhaps read but ignored the major conquests under the four Caliphs, which of course were taken by a military spread, but were highly swift and successful because of the flexibility of the Muslim leadership. diplomacy, trade, education, maintaining a sophisticated class system which allows Egyptians, Berbers, North Africans and Persians into its aristocracy and its leadership.
Under the first Caliphates, Farsi architecture, the philosophy of Greece, and the higher sciences were blossoming. all these facts made Islam a very attractive option.

OK I feel you have no answerd the question at all and totaly side stepped , maybe you dont have the answer i dont know , my question was - was islam spread by the sword - yes or no , seeing as mo was wardlord invovled any many battles it seems as it was , so how do you spread a message of love with voilence , can you answer that for ?

many thansk

 

[Caladan]

OK I feel you have no answerd the question at all and totaly side stepped , maybe you dont have the answer i dont know , my question was - was islam spread by the sword - yes or no , seeing as mo was wardlord invovled any many battles it seems as it was , so how do you spread a message of love with voilence , can you answer that for ?

many thansk

Treaties between tribes, the administration of Mecca and Medina, treaties with the Jews.
trade and diplomacy. all these made the spread of Islam swift.
politics. you have to read about these facts if you want to debate a case.
what is the point of talking about the spread of Islam. without knowing anything about the Rashidun Caliphate or the Umayyad Caliphate, or the Turks and world trade.
you have to make allowances. what are your texts? who's information are you dealing and debating with the rest of us?

Paul reads and discusses Bernard Lewis in this case, and in other cases. Bernard Lewis is a prominent authority on Islam and the West.

 

[Muhktar]

mohammed attacked his former home town

In this instance at least, Muhammad was reclaming the home in which he was driven out, and in doing so he killed no-one. This is was indeed a peaceful victory.

 

[David M]

hi friends

I have just finished reading a book on the history of islam It seems to me after reading the book, that islam was defiantly spread by the sword , there is no doubt about it , mohammed attacked his former home town for what ever reason and after that islam was spread across arabia as mohammed become a political leader,its well documented that Mohammed was involved in many battles.

Islam is often called the religion of peace and love by many muslims but I cant understand how a message of love and peace can by spread by violence.

What is the message of islam and was islam spread by the sword or not ?

If islam was spread by the sword , what message was it spreading

Yes it was (although not exclusivley so), but exactly the same can be said about Christianity. The ancient Hebrews were pretty violent and so were the Hindus, I expect the same can be said about many other religions.