Was Islam spread by the sword?

[Crypto2015]

Please quote from Quran the verse and the verses in the context in this connection.
Regards

It is from Bukhari (4.52.220):

Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

 

[JustWondering]

Really ?

What about Ibn al-RAWANDI, Abu Bakr al-Razi, Al Ma'arri, Muhammad al warraq ?

The Sudanese woman in the news is a proof that Islam can never spread by force,as she refused to return back to Islam even though she may face death,you can never force people to accept religion by war,try it yourself and use force to bring a new religion,i am making that only as an example as of course you won't success,but by peace, you may.

How does no compulsion in religion equate to executing people who don't want to be a muslim? Isn't murdering people who don't except your religion the strongest and most brutal type of compulsion you could use?

 

[JustWondering]

Hi everyone. Some people say that Islam was spread by the sword. Others say that it was not. The Koran says that there is to be no compulsion in religion so it would seem that Islam's sacred text would condone religious freedom. But was this really the case historically? Here is the reference from the Koran which I am referring to.

Islam has been spread by the sword in contradiction to the no compulsion in religion teaching. Most modern Christians don't follow Christ's teachings and example. So what? People are going to do what they're going to do and justify it afterwards however they like. That's simply human nature.

 

[paarsurrey]

It is from Bukhari (4.52.220):

Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

Bukhari is not Quran. Hadith was collected 250/300 years after Muhammad, and did not exist in the life of Muhammad.
Besides the "sword" is not mentioned even in the Hadith quoted by you, Persia or Iran are also not mentioned in he Hadith.
Please quote from Quran to substantiate anything you have in mind to pove, Quran is the first and the foremost source of guidance for Muslims whatever be their denomination.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Was Islam spread by the sword?
No.
For example:
Spread of Islam in Albania: [1]

"According to 2011 census, 58.79% ofAlbania's population adheres toIslam, making it the largestreligionin the country. The majority of Albanian Muslims areSunniwith a smallBektashiShiaminority.Christianityis practiced by 16.99% of the population, making it the 2nd largest religion in the country. The remaining population is eitherirreligiousor belongs to other religious groups.[1]During theOttoman rule of Albania, the majority of Albanians converted to the Muslim affiliation (Sunni and Bektashi). However, decades ofstate atheismwhich ended in 1991 brought a decline in religious practice in all traditions.

A recentPew Research Centerdemographic study put the percentage ofMuslimsin Albania at 79.9%.[2]However, a recent Gallup poll gives percentages of religious affiliations with only 43% Muslim, 19%Eastern Orthodox, 15%Catholicand 23% atheist or nonreligious.[3]In the 2011 census the declared religious affiliation of the population was: 56.70% Sunni Muslims, 2.09% Bektashis, 10.03% Catholics, 6.75% Orthodox, 0.14% Evangelists, 0.07% other Christians, 5.49% believers without denomination, 2.05% Atheists, 13.79% undeclared.[4]65% of Albanian Muslims are non-denominational Muslims."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Albania
I don't see any sword in spread of Islam in Albania.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

Regards

 

[MARCELLO]

Islam was spread by sword and is being spread by bombs right now.
Sure most of the muslims are not doing this but there are still lots of available ones for this performance.

 

[Crypto2015]

Bukhari is not Quran. Hadith was collected 250/300 years after Muhammad, and did not exist in the life of Muhammad.
Besides the "sword" is not mentioned even in the Hadith quoted by you, Persia or Iran are also not mentioned in he Hadith.
Please quote from Quran to substantiate anything you have in mind to pove, Quran is the first and the foremost source of guidance for Muslims whatever be their denomination.
Regards

The Koran is unintelligible without the Hadith and the Sirat. The three of them form the basis of Islamic law. So, your objection is invalid.

 

[Augustus]

During theOttoman rule of Albania, the majority of Albanians converted to the Muslim affiliation (Sunni and Bektashi)...
I don't see any sword in spread of Islam in Albania.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

Using the Ottoman Empire is a bad example as they actually did forcibly convert people.

Devşirme[a] (literally "collecting" in Turkish), also known as the blood tax or tribute in blood, was chiefly the annual practice by which the Ottoman Empire sent military to abduct boys, sons of their Christian subjects in the villages of the Balkans and Anatolia.[1] They were then converted to Islam[2]with the primary objective of selecting and training the ablest children for the military or civil service of the Empire, notably into the Janissaries.[3]

The recruits were indoctrinated into Islam, forced into circumcision and supervised 24 hours a day by eunuchs. They were subjected to severe discipline, being prohibited from growing a beard, taking up a skill other than soldiering, and marrying. As a result, the Janissaries were extremely well-disciplined troops, and became members of the askeri class, the first-class citizens or military class. Most were non-Muslims, because it was not permissible to enslave a Muslim.[7]


I still think that saying Islam was, in general, spread by the sword is not a very helpful way to look at the situation. Why? Because all major cultures have spread in the same way. The West is a product of Christianity, Greek, Romans and Germanic culture, etc all of which were spread very much by the sword.

Muslims conquered territory, and over [a very long] time, for many reasons but rarely forced conversion, people adopted the culture of their conquerers. Others converted due to trade, interaction and proselytisation.

This is the same way that all major cultures have spread. The West has recently been trying to spread democracy and human rights by the sword.

It should also be noted that the people conquered by the Muslims were not exactly pacifists. The Romans and the Persians didn't gain and maintain their empires through kind words and kisses.

Some Muslims like to try to portray the Islamic conquerers as highly ethical, pious men who simply wanted to help others, some anti-Muslims like to present them as the most violent evil animals in history.

Both views are equally false. They were normal men of their time and Islam spread just as other cultures spread. No better no worse.

 

[YmirGF]

Some Muslims like to try to portray the Islamic conquerors as highly ethical, pious men who simply wanted to help others, some anti-Muslims like to present them as the most violent evil animals in history.

Both views are equally false. They were normal men of their time and Islam spread just as other cultures spread. No better no worse.

I agree, for the most part. Islam produced some fairly enlightened generals, all things considered, over the centuries, but it sure had its measure of mad dogs as well. I think what many non-Muslims bridle at is the pristine image of Islamic expansion being all Peace, Love and Beards.

Good points on the nefarious Ottomans too. The Janissaries were a particularly vile example of the literal brain-washing of children.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I think what many non-Muslims bridle at is the pristine image of Islamic expansion being all Peace, Love and Beards.

This. The way some on this thread behave, you'd think nobody was ever forced to adopt Islam.

 

[YmirGF]

This. The way some on this thread behave, you'd think nobody was ever forced to adopt Islam.

Which increases skepticism due to the propaganda aspect. Most people with a working brain know when they are having their legs pulled. Oddly, many Muslim writers never seem to stop to think that we would respect them FAR MORE if they were just honest. I know that is a lot to ask from, what are often, fanatical followers of Allah, but it would go a long way to lessen hostilities. For example, if you want to see a Turk go berserk in a few short seconds just ask them about the Armenian genocide. It is almost a taboo topic in Turkey, to this day.

 

[Nietzsche]

Using the Ottoman Empire is a bad example as they actually did forcibly convert people.

Devşirme[a] (literally "collecting" in Turkish), also known as the blood tax or tribute in blood, was chiefly the annual practice by which the Ottoman Empire sent military to abduct boys, sons of their Christian subjects in the villages of the Balkans and Anatolia.[1] They were then converted to Islam[2]with the primary objective of selecting and training the ablest children for the military or civil service of the Empire, notably into the Janissaries.[3]

The recruits were indoctrinated into Islam, forced into circumcision and supervised 24 hours a day by eunuchs. They were subjected to severe discipline, being prohibited from growing a beard, taking up a skill other than soldiering, and marrying. As a result, the Janissaries were extremely well-disciplined troops, and became members of the askeri class, the first-class citizens or military class. Most were non-Muslims, because it was not permissible to enslave a Muslim.[7]

Depends on who was running the Sublime Porte at the time. You have many Ottoman rulers who didn't particularly care whether his subjects were Muslim or not. I mean Bulgaria, Greece and their vassal states in Wallachia & Moldova, some of the earliest additions to the Ottomans, remained quite Orthodox. The only places in Europe that went Muslim were Bosnia & Albania.

Not saying they were saints. Just pointing out that when you use a system of government where the ruler is chosen due to birth you're going to have a few good guys and a few absolute monsters. And if you've really pulled the Wonka Ticket in the ****-me lottery, you end up with a Charles II of Spain.

 

[Augustus]

The only places in Europe that went Muslim were Bosnia & Albania.

And mostly for socio-economic reasons over a prolonged period of time.

Not saying they were saints. Just pointing out that when you use a system of government where the ruler is chosen due to birth you're going to have a few good guys and a few absolute monsters.

For a significant part of its history, the Ottoman practice of open succession, having to claim the throne by force and possibly kill off several brothers, didn't exactly favour the meek and mild either.

And if you've really pulled the Wonka Ticket in the ****-me lottery, you end up with a Charles II of Spain.

A fine looking chap who, apparently, was very good at playing dueling banjos.

 

[Nietzsche]

And mostly for socio-economic reasons over a prolonged period of time.

Quite

For a significant part of its history, the Ottoman practice of open succession, having to claim the throne by force and possibly kill off several brothers, didn't exactly favour the meek and mild either.

These things I know. Like how wives would plot & murder others so their sons had a better chance at the throne.

However, regarding Janissaries themselves; What's your opinion on the making & use of Eunuchs by the Byzantines? There's not too much difference between the two, all things considered. They both tended to live rather luxurious lives and tended to get titles positions of power because it meant the individual wouldn't have a chance(literally) to make it into a dynasty.

A fine looking chap who, apparently, was very good at playing dueling banjos.

Know what the funniest part is?

That's obviously a court painting, done by those trying to curry favour. Which means that is the absolute best they could paint him to look without it being possible to mistake him for someone else.

 

[Augustus]

Know what the funniest part is?

That's obviously a court painting, done by those trying to curry favour. Which means that is the absolute best they could paint him to look without it being possible to mistake him for someone else.

Imagine getting that commission.

I'd like to inform you that due to your skills in the fine arts, you have been chosen to paint a likeness of his majesty, King Charles.

Oh for f**** sake. B****** f****** hell. Sweet c****** Jesus. F*** c*** f**** c***, etc.

However, regarding Janissaries themselves; What's your opinion on the making & use of Eunuchs by the Byzantines? There's not too much difference between the two, all things considered. They both tended to live rather luxurious lives and tended to get titles positions of power because it meant the individual wouldn't have a chance(literally) to make it into a dynasty.

I don't think any of the medieval empires can be held up as paragons of virtue. Which is why I don't agree that highlighting Islam as being 'spread by the sword' is a particularly useful way to look at the history unless you want to highlight the equivalent actions by their contemporaries.

Muhammed's contemporary Heraclius has a more apparent record of forced conversions than Muhammed or the Rashidun Caliphs did. The Persians punished apostasy with death, etc.

 

[Nietzsche]

Imagine getting that commission.

I'd like to inform you that due to your skills in the fine arts, you have been chosen to paint a likeness of his majesty, King Charles.

Oh for f**** sake. B****** f****** hell. Sweet c****** Jesus. F*** c*** f**** c***, etc.

I like to think that the guy who eventually did it was like the 8th or 9th artist they went to, with all the others screaming "I WORSHIP SATAN!" or "I'M A JEW!" just so the Inquisition adn their follow-up groups could grant them the sweet release of death, sparing them that Sissyphean task of "Can you make Charles look less like the spawn of an unholy union of some Elder God and more huma...I mean, make Charles look, true to life, as the most handsome of the Spanish Hapsburgs!"

I don't think any of the medieval empires can be held up as paragons of virtue. Which is why I don't agree that highlighting Islam as being 'spread by the sword' is a particularly useful way to look at the history unless you want to highlight the equivalent actions by their contemporaries.

Completely agreed. Humans were and still are ********.Then why, might I ask, are we going after Muhammad here? For his day he wasn't too terrible a person. That's a low bar, but it's something. Or is this discussion about Islam after Muhammad died(I am not reading 114 pages of sycophantic Muslims, belligerent atheists and Evangelical Christians playing a game of "my dick is bigger than yours".

[quote[Muhammed's contemporary Heraclius has a more apparent record of forced conversions than Muhammed or the Rashidun Caliphs did. The Persians punished apostasy with death, etc.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. All I've read seem to indcate that while he(Muhammad) could be a complete prick, he wasn't any worse than any other warlord wandering the desert wastes like an early Lord Humongous or Immortan Joe.

JUST STEP AWAY FROM THE HOLY CITY..

 

[Augustus]

Then why, might I ask, are we going after Muhammad here? For his day he wasn't too terrible a person. That's a low bar, but it's something. Or is this discussion about Islam after Muhammad died

I've only read the last few pages, but most people tend not to make that much of a distinction. It's just 'Islam' which is 'obviously' the same from the Arab conquests to the 21st C. This view is a strange case as it is both fuelled by anti-Muslim propaganda and the propaganda of some Muslims.

It tends not to relate too closely to actual history, which is pretty much my point.

 

[Nietzsche]

I've only read the last few pages, but most people tend not to make that much of a distinction. It's just 'Islam' which is 'obviously' the same from the Arab conquests to the 21st C. This view is a strange case as it is both fuelled by anti-Muslim propaganda and the propaganda of some Muslims.

It tends not to relate too closely to actual history, which is pretty much my point.

Ahhh, yes, that. Because obviously the actions of a minority are representative of(in this case) a good ****ing 1/4th the of the world population. Much like how all Germans are Nazis who get a raging boner when thinking about cremation ovens, white Southerners still try to by African Farm Equipment and Russia is full of depressed, vodka-swilling brutes..

Alright that last on is obviously just true, but you see what I mean.

(not referring to you in any of that, just others)

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

The tongue you all use to communicate was also spread by the sword, the laws we live by also.
Another pointless thread other than to cause conflict.

 

[gnostic]

I like to think that the guy who eventually did it was like the 8th or 9th artist they went to, with all the others screaming "I WORSHIP SATAN!" or "I'M A JEW!" just so the Inquisition adn their follow-up groups could grant them the sweet release of death, sparing them that Sissyphean task of "Can you make Charles look less like the spawn of an unholy union of some Elder God and more huma...I mean, make Charles look, true to life, as the most handsome of the Spanish Hapsburgs!"

*spits water* *cough* *cough* *cough*



Wow, that was the most wonderfully funny sarcasm that I have ever heard...