Was Islam spread by the sword?

[The Emperor of Mankind]

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.

Mohammed's conduct in the 7th Century wouldn't be so much of a problem if certain people weren't using it as a justification for how they act in the here and now. That position aside, it's counter-intuititive for Muslims to argue that Mohammed was in direct conduct with the supreme source of morality in the Universe for them to then say that he still indulged in immoral acts - and to then excuse his behaviour by comparing it to the 'less moral' societies around him. Putting Islam (or any exclusivist religion) up on a pedestal, then excusing acts committed for its benefit by saying 'ah, but the immoral infidels did it too' is having your cake and eating it.

If you set yourself up as having a higher morality than those around you then in order to be consistent you must hold yourself to that morality - not the morality of those around you.

 

[Augustus]

Mohammed's conduct in the 7th Century wouldn't be so much of a problem if certain people weren't using it as a justification for how they act in the here and now. That position aside, it's counter-intuititive for Muslims to argue that Mohammed was in direct conduct with the supreme source of morality in the Universe for them to then say that he still indulged in immoral acts - and to then excuse his behaviour by comparing it to the 'less moral' societies around him. Putting Islam (or any exclusivist religion) up on a pedestal, then excusing acts committed for its benefit by saying 'ah, but the immoral infidels did it too' is having your cake and eating it.

If you set yourself up as having a higher morality than those around you then in order to be consistent you must hold yourself to that morality - not the morality of those around you.

This is a completely different issue though with no connection to the question of whether Islam was spread by the sword or not.

I'm saying that if you consider Islam to have been spread by the sword then you have to consider almost every other major culture to also have been spread by the sword. The Arab empire was similar in attitude to the Romans and Persians in the way it treated conquered peoples, which is unsurprising as they had been on the imperial payroll of both powers for centuries. They took slaves, they robbed, they certainly demanded tribute, but if people submitted to their rule then they were mostly left to their own devices. Most cities that didn't fight were left unharmed, but lighter in the purse. They were now paying the Arabs for this privilege rather than the Roman of Persians though. The early people conquered didn't even seem to know they had been conquered by Muslims, so the idea that the Arabs charged in and started beheading everyone who didn't convert is ahistorical. They were more interested in gold than proselytising. Anyway, many of those involved in the early conquests were Jews and Christians.

It took maybe 400 years for Islam to become the majority religion in the Middle East. Jews and Christians were discriminated against, although how much changed depending on then ruler, but were not forced to convert. The character of the Islamic Empires changed significantly over time also, they were really multiple different Empires rather than a single continuous polity. Due to their significantly different natures there is no more reason to treat them as being a singular "Islam' than it is to treat the Byzantines and Charlemagne as being simply a singular Christianity

It is a point based on actual history, or as much as we can know from the limited sources of the era. It is completely independent of Islamic ethics from a theological perspective based on myths and other stuff I don't accept the historicity of.

There's no cake to have and eat, either what I say is based on actual history, or it is not.

 

[Crypto2015]

It amazes me that this question is even being broached. Islam certainly spread by the sword. Some may say that all religions spread by the sword at some point, and that may be true, but the big difference is that Islam spread by the sword from the very beginning, that its founder, Muhammad, murdered people with the sole purpose of acquiring earthly power, and that he encouraged his disciples to follow his example until the end of times. In this Islam is unique. Neither Christ, nor Moses, nor Buddha dismembered live old women (read the story of Umm Qirfa), nor approved of the hideous murder and disembowelment of pregnant women who had criticized them (read Abu Dawood 4361), nor beheaded hundreds of prisoners including preteen boys (read about the invasion of Banu Qurayza), nor had sex with nine-year-old girls (read about the history of Aisha). Islam is the most abhorrent ideology ever devised. Wherever Islam goes there is hatred, murder, mutilation, oppression, death.

 

[paarsurrey]

It amazes me that this question is even being broached. Islam certainly spread by the sword. Some may say that all religions spread by the sword at some point, and that may be true, but the big difference is that Islam spread by the sword from the very beginning, that its founder, Muhammad, murdered people with the sole purpose of acquiring earthly power, and that he encouraged his disciples to follow his example until the end of times. In this Islam is unique. Neither Christ, nor Moses, nor Buddha dismembered live old women (read the story of Umm Qirfa), nor approved of the hideous murder and disembowelment of pregnant women who had criticized them (read Abu Dawood 4361), nor beheaded hundreds of prisoners including preteen boys (read about the invasion of Banu Qurayza), nor had sex with nine-year-old girls (read about the history of Aisha). Islam is the most abhorrent ideology ever devised. Wherever Islam goes there is hatred, murder, mutilation, oppression, death.

That is totally wrong.
Regards

 

[Augustus]

It amazes me that this question is even being broached. Islam certainly spread by the sword. Some may say that all religions spread by the sword at some point, and that may be true, but the big difference is that Islam spread by the sword from the very beginning,

Actually, a much more debatable point than you assume. The Islamic version of history is often highly mythologised:

There is a downside, however, in assuming faith to be the prime instigator of the Arab conquests. Besides the difficulty of assessing whether one group is more zealous than another (why should we think that the Byzantines and Sasanians had less zeal for their faith than the Arabs?), this explanation focuses very narrowly on one time and place, early seventh-century west Arabia, and one man, Muhammad, and ignores broader currents of world history... Of course, the prophet Muhammad played a much more crucial role in the uprising that followed his death, and his politico-religious message and organization were key to the future direction of the conquests. However, the fact that other peoples, such as the Turks and Avars, were also striving to conquer Byzantium and Persia at this time, and the fact that there were many prophetic figures active in Arabia in the early seventh century, suggests that we need to think more broadly about the ultimate causes of the Arab conquests... the Arab conquests began as an Arab insurrection, that is, the early conquerors were not invaders coming from outside the empire but insiders trying to seize a share of the power and wealth of the Byzantine state. This helps explain why the Arab conquests were not particularly destructive: the leadership already had close acquaintance with the empires and they wanted to rule it themselves, not destroy it... After the defeat at the Battle of Yarmuk in 636, a substantial number of Christian Arabs went over to the side of the victors... Ninth-century Muslim historians, wishing to systematize the conquest accounts, often maintained that everyone the conquerors met was offered the same three choices of conversion, surrender and payment of a poll tax, or death in battle, but enough non-standard reports have survived to allow us to glimpse a more variegated picture. For example, the Samaritans of Palestine agreed to act as guides and spies in return for exemption from land tax, and the Jarajima, longtime residents of the Black Mountain region around Antioch, served as frontier guards on the condition that they paid no tax and kept any booty they took when they fought alongside the Arabs... Since it is the most common word for the conquerors in the seventh century, employed by themselves and by the conquered, we should really speak of the conquests of the muhajirun, rather than of the Arabs or Muslims, which only become popular terms in the eighth century. At the very least, we should recognize this primary impulse of the movement after Muhammad’s death, namely, to conquer and settle, a message that must have originated in the early drive to recruit the nomadic tribes of Arabia and the Syrian desert. Robert Hoyland - In God's Path: the Arab Conquests

 

[paarsurrey]

Was Islam spread by the sword?
No.
For example:
Spread of Islam in Albania: [2]

History[edit]
Ottoman period[edit]
Islamcame toAlbaniathrough theOttoman Empirein the 14th century. In the North, the spread of Islam was slower due to resistance from the RomanCatholic Churchand the mountainous terrain which contributed to curb Muslim influence. In the center and south, however, by the end of the seventeenth century the urban centers had largely adopted the religion of the growing Albanian Muslim elite. The existence of an Albanian Muslim class ofpashasandbeyswho played an increasingly important role in Ottoman political and economic life became an attractive career option for most Albanians.

The Muslims of Albania were divided into two main communities: those associated withSunniIslam and those associated with theBektashiSufis, a mysticDervishorder that came to Albania during the Ottoman period, primarily during the 18th and 19th centuries. The Bektashi sect is considered heretical by most mainstream Muslims. Historically Sunni Islam found its strongest base in northern and central Albania, while Bektashis were found primarily in the Tosk lands of the south.

During Ottoman rule the Albanian population gradually began to convert toIslamthrough the teachings ofBektashism, in order to gain considerable advantages in the Ottoman trade networks, bureaucracy and army. Many Albanians were recruited into the OttomanJanissaryandDevşirmeand 42Grand Viziersof theOttoman Empirewere of Albanian origin. The most prominent Albanians during Ottoman rule were:Koca Davud Pasha,Hamza Kastrioti,Iljaz Hoxha,Nezim Frakulla,Köprülü Mehmed Pasha,Ali Pasha,Edhem Pasha,Haxhi Shehreti,Ali Pasha of Gucia,Ibrahim Pasha of Berat,Köprülü Fazıl Ahmed,Muhammad Ali of Egypt,Kara Mahmud Bushati,Ahmet Kurt Pasha.

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

 

[paarsurrey]

It amazes me that this question is even being broached. Islam certainly spread by the sword. Some may say that all religions spread by the sword at some point, and that may be true, but the big difference is that Islam spread by the sword from the very beginning, that its founder, Muhammad, murdered people with the sole purpose of acquiring earthly power, and that he encouraged his disciples to follow his example until the end of times. In this Islam is unique. Neither Christ, nor Moses, nor Buddha dismembered live old women (read the story of Umm Qirfa), nor approved of the hideous murder and disembowelment of pregnant women who had criticized them (read Abu Dawood 4361), nor beheaded hundreds of prisoners including preteen boys (read about the invasion of Banu Qurayza), nor had sex with nine-year-old girls (read about the history of Aisha). Islam is the most abhorrent ideology ever devised. Wherever Islam goes there is hatred, murder, mutilation, oppression, death.

Not mentioned in Quran. Hadith was written 250/300 years after Muhammad and did not exist in the time of Muhammad.
Quran is the first and the foremost source of guidance of Islam/Muhammad, whatever the denomination.
Regards

 

[Augustus]

Many Albanians were recruited into the Ottoman Janissary and Devşirme. I don't see any sword in spread of Islam in Albania. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Look up Devsirme and Janissary, you will find some 'sword' there. As I said, this was genuine forced conversion which is why using the Ottomans is a bad example for the point you are making.

Most Albanians converted for socioeconomic reasons, but you can't say there was no sword because there were many forced conversions as you can see if you look up those terms.

 

[Kirran]

Was Islam spread by the sword?
No.
For example:
Spread of Islam in Albania: [2]

History[edit]
Ottoman period[edit]
Islamcame toAlbaniathrough theOttoman Empirein the 14th century. In the North, the spread of Islam was slower due to resistance from the RomanCatholic Churchand the mountainous terrain which contributed to curb Muslim influence. In the center and south, however, by the end of the seventeenth century the urban centers had largely adopted the religion of the growing Albanian Muslim elite. The existence of an Albanian Muslim class ofpashasandbeyswho played an increasingly important role in Ottoman political and economic life became an attractive career option for most Albanians.

The Muslims of Albania were divided into two main communities: those associated withSunniIslam and those associated with theBektashiSufis, a mysticDervishorder that came to Albania during the Ottoman period, primarily during the 18th and 19th centuries. The Bektashi sect is considered heretical by most mainstream Muslims. Historically Sunni Islam found its strongest base in northern and central Albania, while Bektashis were found primarily in the Tosk lands of the south.

During Ottoman rule the Albanian population gradually began to convert toIslamthrough the teachings ofBektashism, in order to gain considerable advantages in the Ottoman trade networks, bureaucracy and army. Many Albanians were recruited into the OttomanJanissaryandDevşirmeand 42Grand Viziersof theOttoman Empirewere of Albanian origin. The most prominent Albanians during Ottoman rule were:Koca Davud Pasha,Hamza Kastrioti,Iljaz Hoxha,Nezim Frakulla,Köprülü Mehmed Pasha,Ali Pasha,Edhem Pasha,Haxhi Shehreti,Ali Pasha of Gucia,Ibrahim Pasha of Berat,Köprülü Fazıl Ahmed,Muhammad Ali of Egypt,Kara Mahmud Bushati,Ahmet Kurt Pasha.

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

In other words, if you wanted to be wealthy, be prominent in society, in the army or the government, you had to convert to Islam. Not ideal.

Anyway, one example doesn't throw out the fact that Islam has, in some examples, been spread by the sword. In many more examples, it has spread through social pressures etc like in Albania. Others, it has spread simply through being appealing (usually due to Sufi influences), and more often a combination of these.

 

[MARCELLO]

That is totally wrong.
Regards

Which part is wrong,pls cite. The 9 years old Aisha of Mohammed is the most famous girl in the world among the girls of this age. Dis not he marry his adopted? Was not he allowed to marry unlimited number wives by Allah?

Pls stop denying.

 

[Crypto2015]

Not mentioned in Quran. Hadith was written 250/300 years after Muhammad and did not exist in the time of Muhammad.
Quran is the first and the foremost source of guidance of Islam/Muhammad, whatever the denomination.
Regards

The Quran is meaningless without the Hadith because you need the Hadith in order to provide a context for the Quran. For example, the Quran says that Muhammad is the role model that all Muslims must follow:

Indeed in the Messenger of Allah (Muhammad SAW) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah much.

Quran (Surah Al-Ahzab, Verse 21)

However, the Quran provides absolutely no information about the character and deeds of Muhammad. All we know about Muhammad has reached us through the Hadith. This demonstrates that the Quran is incomplete without an external source of information. To my mind, this also demonstrates that the Quran is clearly man-made.

 

[MARCELLO]

I perfectly understand to take a role model of a prophet in his good behaviors,but tell me the lesson I should take from Mohammed's marrying infinitely,like there is no tomorrow? Or eating with hands ( this is a very important sunnah for a good muslim that even in a 5 star hotel they will do this.)

 

[MARCELLO]

Also, Mohammed was a popular tradesman among his tribe and he was definitely rich when he became a prophet. He does not represent an average human. He was indeed an elite.

 

[McBell]

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.

Ah, you mean like your above quoted post?

 

[paarsurrey]

Which part is wrong,pls cite. The 9 years old Aisha of Mohammed is the most famous girl in the world among the girls of this age. Dis not he marry his adopted? Was not he allowed to marry unlimited number wives by Allah?

Pls stop denying.

Please quote some sources of Muhammad's time to support your viewpoint.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

The Quran is meaningless without the Hadith because you need the Hadith in order to provide a context for the Quran. For example, the Quran says that Muhammad is the role model that all Muslims must follow:
Indeed in the Messenger of Allah (Muhammad SAW) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah much.
Quran (Surah Al-Ahzab, Verse 21)
However, the Quran provides absolutely no information about the character and deeds of Muhammad. All we know about Muhammad has reached us through the Hadith. This demonstrates that the Quran is incomplete without an external source of information. To my mind, this also demonstrates that the Quran is clearly man-made.

Simply wrong.
All that is required by Muslims as an ethical,moral or spiritual guide is provided in Quran in its verses with the context.
Regards

 

[Crypto2015]

Simply wrong.
All that is required by Muslims as an ethical,moral or spiritual guide is provided in Quran in its verses with the context.
Regards

You are evidently mistaken. How can you follow Muhammad's example, as ordered by the Quran, when the Quran tells you nothing about Muhammad's biography? It's as if I tell you "follow my example" without telling you who I am.

 

[paarsurrey]

You are evidently mistaken. How can you follow Muhammad's example, as ordered by the Quran, when the Quran tells you nothing about Muhammad's biography? It's as if I told you, follow my example, without telling you who I am.

You are again wrong. There is nowhere in Quran mentioned to follow Hadith? If it is, the quote it please.
Regards

 

[Crypto2015]

You are again wrong. There is nowhere in Quran mentioned to follow Hadith? If it is, the quote it please.
Regards

You are just pretending that you don't understand my point. You know that the Quran tells you to follow Muhammad's example without providing you with any information whatsoever on Muhammad's character and deeds. Therefore, the Quran, in order to present a complete, intelligible message, depends on the Hadith and the biography of Muhammad (the Sirat). Hence, the Quran, an allegedly divinely inspired book, evidently needs a non-inspired, man-made book (namely, the six collections of Hadith) in order to be understood by the Muslim community. This proves without a shadow of a doubt that the Quran is false and man made.

 

[paarsurrey]

You are just pretending that you don't understand my point. You know that the Quran tells you to follow Muhammad's example without providing you with any information whatsoever on Muhammad's character and deeds. Therefore, the Quran, in order to present a complete, intelligible message, depends on the Hadith and the biography of Muhammad (the Sirat). Hence, the Quran, an allegedly divinely inspired book, evidently needs a non-inspired, man-made book (namely, the six collections of Hadith) in order to be understood by the Muslim community. This proves without a shadow of a doubt that the Quran is false and man made.

You are wrong a third time. Quran mentions enough of life of Muhammad that a Muslim needs as an example to follow. Do you thing that Muslims who lived in the time of Muhammad or who lived up-to 250/300 years after Muhammad (when book of Hadith were written down) were not following Muhammad character and deeds.
I would like to ask you a simple question. Have you studied Quran from cover to cover? Please
Regards