Was Islam spread by the sword?

[Crypto2015]

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

Yes, I have. Only four verses mention Muhammad. If you stick solely to the Quran, you cannot reconstruct Muhammad's personality. How are you supposed to imitate someone that you don't know?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

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

No - the two are linked. Clearly the fighters of IS believe (or purport to believe) that they are following Mohammed's example by enslaving women and children as well as beheading non-Muslim men like Mohammed had done with the allegedly treacherous Jewish tribes following the Battle of the Trench. If you want an example of Mohammed forcibly Islamising an area, look no further than his conquest of Mecca. Mohammed's war with the Quraysh ended with terms of surrender for Mecca which included the destruction of pre-Islamic cult images in the Kaaba. I'm sceptical of the allegedly bloodless nature of Muhammed's of Mecca and of the idea that an almost completely Pagan Arabian Peninsula adopted Islam within 3 years of the Islamisation of Mecca. I think such descriptions (purely from Islamic sources, might I add) are designed to build up Mohammed to be a larger than life character; that his allegedly chosen nature shines through in saintly actions.

I wrote a lot more in response to other parts of your post but I ended up repeating myself. So here I stop.

 

[Augustus]

No - the two are linked. Clearly the fighters of IS believe (or purport to believe) that they are following Mohammed's example by enslaving women and children as well as beheading non-Muslim men like Mohammed had done with the allegedly treacherous Jewish tribes following the Battle of the Trench. If you want an example of Mohammed forcibly Islamising an area, look no further than his conquest of Mecca. Mohammed's war with the Quraysh ended with terms of surrender for Mecca which included the destruction of pre-Islamic cult images in the Kaaba. I'm sceptical of the allegedly bloodless nature of Muhammed's of Mecca and of the idea that an almost completely Pagan Arabian Peninsula adopted Islam within 3 years of the Islamisation of Mecca. I think such descriptions (purely from Islamic sources, might I add) are designed to build up Mohammed to be a larger than life character; that his allegedly chosen nature shines through in saintly actions.

I wrote a lot more in response to other parts of your post but I ended up repeating myself. So here I stop.

We seem to be talking about 2 different things though. You are discussing from the perspective of Islamic theology, and I'm trying to discuss from the perspective of history. ISIS do believe they are following the example of Muhammed, which makes looking at the actual historicity of the period even more important.

Muhammed was a real person, but the hadith and sirah, as you acknowledge, are no more reliable when discussing his actual life than the gospels are when discussing Jesus. Did you read the stuff I quoted in post 2305 from Hoyland - In God's path? It explains why seeing the Arab conquests as being religiously motivated is problematic. Muhammed was far from the only local military leader.

It's probably more likely that the success of the conquests led to the popularising of Muhammed's message, rather than the popularity of his message led to the conquests. With victory seen by people of the era as indicative of Divine favour, the success of an Arab insurrection led to the adoption of the Arabised version of Jewish Christianity that grew out of the teachings of Muhammed.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

We seem to be talking about 2 different things though. You are discussing from the perspective of Islamic theology, and I'm trying to discuss from the perspective of history. ISIS do believe they are following the example of Muhammed, which makes looking at the actual historicity of the period even more important.

Muhammed was a real person, but the hadith and sirah, as you acknowledge, are no more reliable when discussing his actual life than the gospels are when discussing Jesus. Did you read the stuff I quoted in post 2305 from Hoyland - In God's path? It explains why seeing the Arab conquests as being religiously motivated is problematic. Muhammed was far from the only local military leader.

It's probably more likely that the success of the conquests led to the popularising of Muhammed's message, rather than the popularity of his message led to the conquests. With victory seen by people of the era as indicative of Divine favour, the success of an Arab insurrection led to the adoption of the Arabised version of Jewish Christianity that grew out of the teachings of Muhammed.

I was doing some light reading of the conquest of Mecca but not from the Hoyland thing you quoted. I'll look that up on Google books. If you want to look at Mohammed's actions through a military lens rather than a religious one then I can see what you're saying makes sense. The problem I find with that is Islam has a tendency to view everything through a religious lens - at least in part - and that's what leads me to doubt the veracity of their version of events. It's in Islam's interest to make Mohammed seem as benevolent as possible to make its own teachings seem all the more appealing. None of the sources can come close to being regarded as impartial given that they're distorted by both the passage of time and inherent religious bias.

Regarding your last paragraph, that's one explanation that could apply and be believable - I would point out, however, that if you take European Pagans as an example, it took centuries to Christianise the Roman (and later Byzantine) Empire, even with the outlawing of the Old Gods. And that was with established routes of travel. As I've said before, Islam would have us believe it held sway over all of Arabia in the three years between the conversion of Mecca and Mohammed's death. Given the sheer size of the region in question, the scattered nature of the Arabian tribes, and the difficulties of travelling (there would have been little to no travel infrastructure away from the relatively stable land along the coasts), this seems highly unlikely. You could argue that Mohammed's gentle approach may have made transitions seem more appealing and reasonable, but that doesn't solve the problem of timescale.

 

[Augustus]

The problem I find with that is Islam has a tendency to view everything through a religious lens - at least in part - and that's what leads me to doubt the veracity of their version of events. It's in Islam's interest to make Mohammed seem as benevolent as possible to make its own teachings seem all the more appealing. None of the sources can come close to being regarded as impartial given that they're distorted by both the passage of time and inherent religious bias.

Until relatively recently, even Western academics didn't make much of an effort to de-theologise the history of Islam. Most Muslims still accept the historicity of what are ultimately theological texts also.

Most of the hadith and sirah literature was compiled 100-300 years after Muhammed died, so it is prudent to treat it with a healthy dose of scepticism. There is also a reasonable case to be made that, as Jesus arguably was, Muhammed was preaching an eschatological message with the end of days seen as being imminent. Centuries later, such a message has to be rationalised against this not actually occurring.

I would point out, however, that if you take European Pagans as an example, it took centuries to Christianise the Roman (and later Byzantine) Empire, even with the outlawing of the Old Gods. As I've said before, Islam would have us believe it held sway over all of Arabia in the three years between the conversion of Mecca and Mohammed's death. Given the sheer size of the region in question, the scattered nature of the Arabian tribes, and the difficulties of travelling (there would have been little to no travel infrastructure away from the relatively stable land along the coasts), this seems highly unlikely. You could argue that Mohammed's gentle approach may have made transitions seem more appealing and reasonable, but that doesn't solve the problem of timescale.

There is ample evidence that Judaism and Christianity had been spreading among the Arabs for centuries. This 'untouched, isolated pagan backwater' idea is later mythmaking to try to distance the Quran from its Judaeo-Christian roots. In Himyar (Yemen), not too long before Muhammed, there had been wars between Jewish Arabs and Christians from Ethiopia. The West coast is acknowledged, even by the Islamic tradition as having many Jews and Christians in the towns. In Northern Arabia the Lahkmids and Ghassanid tribes who fought for the Romans and Persians were mostly Christian.The Quran itself shows a relatively complex understanding of certain theological issues of the period. The Hijaz was an integrated part of the region, not a mysterious isolated land before time.

If you compare it to Europe, the Romans hired the pagan tribes as foederati to fight for them and protect the borders. This had the process of 'Romanising' the elites and increasing the power and organisational capacities of the favoured leaders. Disparate tribes became more united and instead of dozens, you ended up with 2 major Gothic tribes.

After a certain point, they realised that they were stronger than their masters and decided to help themselves to some of their empire.

The same is likely true for the Arabs who became more united and better organised. The Romans and Persians were very weak due to war and plague, Arabs started raiding the empire prior to Muhammed's time. They realised that the Romans couldn't stop them and once the only major Roman Army in the region was defeated, there was nothing to stop them. The geography of the Middle East doesn't have many natural defences, so the whole region opened up. After they lost territory, the Romans and Persians lost not only potential manpower, but also large amounts of revenue. The Arabs gained these in turn and nothing succeeds like success anyway, so why not fight for the winning side?

 

[MARCELLO]

See the flag of Saudi Arabia,and then decide the sword thing .

https://www.google.com.tr/search?q=...h3npQkf&biw=911&bih=429#imgrc=cRFTGLvnwvdaGM:

 

[MARCELLO]

What happened to the trading jewish communities of Medinah? Perhaps it is the aliens made them disappear. Very fantastic though unrealistic.

 

[paarsurrey]

We seem to be talking about 2 different things though. You are discussing from the perspective of Islamic theology, and I'm trying to discuss from the perspective of history. ISIS do believe they are following the example of Muhammed, which makes looking at the actual historicity of the period even more important.
Muhammed was a real person, but the hadith and sirah, as you acknowledge, are no more reliable when discussing his actual life than the gospels are when discussing Jesus. Did you read the stuff I quoted in post 2305 from Hoyland - In God's path? It explains why seeing the Arab conquests as being religiously motivated is problematic. Muhammed was far from the only local military leader.
It's probably more likely that the success of the conquests led to the popularising of Muhammed's message, rather than the popularity of his message led to the conquests. With victory seen by people of the era as indicative of Divine favour, the success of an Arab insurrection led to the adoption of the Arabised version of Jewish Christianity that grew out of the teachings of Muhammed.

I like your above expressions that I have coloured in magenta.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Was Islam spread by the sword?
No.
For example:
Spread of Islam in American Samoa:


The Islamic population of American Samoa is negligible, but the territory's policy on Muslim travelers gained them international attention in the early 2000s. In 2002 American Samoa placed restrictions on Muslims entering their territory[1]without the express permission of the Attorney General of American Samoa.[2]The restrictions applied to those arriving from 25 nations with Muslim populations, including near by Fiji which has a 10% Muslim minority. Fiji was removed from the list at the insistence of the Fijian government in 2003.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_American_Samoa
American Samoa Muslim population
2010 Pew Report Muslim population < 1,000: Muslim percentage (%) of total population < 0.1: Percentage (%) of World Muslim population < 0.1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country

I don't see any sword in spread of Islam in American Samoa.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

Regards

 

[popsthebuilder]

Well I don't think it's either fair or accurate to lump Judaism in with in with Islam and Christianity regarding religions which were spread by the sword, because it wasn't. Both Islam and Christianity( thought not initially) however were definitely spread not by love but by violence. Convert or die and convert or be second class, heavily taxed citizens were applied by both religions to subjugated and conquered peoples. That whole no compulsion in religion is a contradiction and contrary to the historical accounts of the spread of Islam, this can even be found in the Koran and the hadith's themselves. Spin masters can spin if that makes them feel better but anyone willing to have an objective look at world history can discover this fact without much effort. Both Christianity and Islam have both blood and compulsion in their histories, and still do.

That in no way implies that they were being rightly guided by the respective scriptures.

 

[paarsurrey]

That in no way implies that they were being rightly guided by the respective scriptures.

I don't get you exactly what you have said. Please elaborate for us.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

steeltoes said: ↑
Islam, Judaism, and Christianity were spread by the sword. My parents never used a sword, they didn't even own one, but they did force me to go to church every Sunday against my will.

Well I don't think it's either fair or accurate to lump Judaism in with in with Islam and Christianity regarding religions which were spread by the sword, because it wasn't. Both Islam and Christianity( thought not initially) however were definitely spread not by love but by violence. Convert or die and convert or be second class, heavily taxed citizens were applied by both religions to subjugated and conquered peoples. That whole no compulsion in religion is a contradiction and contrary to the historical accounts of the spread of Islam, this can even be found in the Koran and the hadith's themselves. Spin masters can spin if that makes them feel better but anyone willing to have an objective look at world history can discover this fact without much effort. Both Christianity and Islam have both blood and compulsion in their histories, and still do.

I thin friend arcanum has not read the Torah for himself, I quote from Jewish Torah:

Deuteronomy 20:1-17
1When you go out to war against your enemies, and you see horse and chariot, a people more numerous than you, you shall not be afraid of them, for the Lord, your God is with you Who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.
2And it will be, when you approach the battle, that the kohen shall come near, and speak to the people.
3And he shall say to them, "Hear, O Israel, today you are approaching the battle against your enemies. Let your hearts not be faint; you shall not be afraid, and you shall not be alarmed, and you shall not be terrified because of them.
4For the Lord, your God, is the One Who goes with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you.
5And the officers shall speak to the people, saying, What man is there who has built a new house and has not [yet] inaugurated it? Let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the war, and another man inaugurate it.
6And what man is there who has planted a vineyard, and has not [yet] redeemed it? Let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the war, and another man redeem it.
7And what man is there who has betrothed a woman and has not [yet] taken her? Let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the war, and another man take her."
8And the officers shall continue to speak to the people and say, "What man is there who is fearful and fainthearted? Let him go and return to his house, that he should not cause the heart of his brothers to melt, as his heart."
9And it shall be, that when the officials finish speaking to the people, they shall appoint officers of the legions at the edges of the people.
10When you approach a city to wage war against it, you shall propose peace to it.
11And it will be, if it responds to you with peace, and it opens up to you, then it will be, [that] all the people found therein shall become tributary to you, and they shall serve you.
12But if it does not make peace with you, and it wages war against you, you shall besiege it,
13and the Lord, your God, will deliver it into your hands, and you shall strike all its males with the edge of the sword.
14However, the women, the children, and the livestock, and all that is in the city, all its spoils you shall take for yourself, and you shall eat the spoils of your enemies, which the Lord, your God, has given you.
15Thus you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not of the cities of these nations.
16However, of these peoples' cities, which the Lord, your God, gives you as an inheritance, you shall not allow any soul to live.
17Rather, you shall utterly destroy them: The Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivvites, and the Jebusites, as the Lord, your God, has commanded you.
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9984

Who wrote the above verses? What was his planning and how it was implemented? Please.
Regards

 

[popsthebuilder]

I don't get you exactly what you have said. Please elaborate for us.
Regards

In history and today people of all walks are greedy and hypocritical. When religion is added to this it becomes quite damning and painful/ fatal for many. These heinous deeds of the corrupt hands of man are not true representations of their respective scriptures. The scriptures are used as an excuse for discrimination. This manipulation will prove quite damning to the perpetrators of such atrocious acts either in this world or the next.

 

[paarsurrey]

So the fault is with those people who misuse the scripture of the truthful Religion.
Regards

 

[McBell]

So the fault is with those people who misuse the scripture of the truthful Religion.
Regards

How does one know who is and who is not "misusing" the scripture?

Is diverting attention away from the truth a sign?
How about full blown denial of the facts?

 

[gnostic]

Who wrote the above verses? What was his planning and how it was implemented?

I will reply this part first.

The Deuteronomy, along with a number of other books (Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings) were all written during the second half of 7th century BCE, during the reign of Josiah of Judah (641 - 610 BCE). Although, the Deuteronomy was assembled as part of the Torah, because it narrated the last years of Moses' life, it was a deuteronomic book.

I thin friend arcanum has not read the Torah for himself, I quote from Jewish Torah:

Deuteronomy 20:1-17

Actually, you are the one who is not reading the Torah properly.

It only state to fight the enemies if they (enemies) don't make peace with them. If there are no resistance, and they only want peace, then the Israelites don't have to fight them.

The Israelites were going to invade Canaan, because was part of the covenant made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, (as well as to Moses in the Exodus) that the land of Canaan will belong to the descendants of the 3 patriarchs of Genesis.

No where in Deuteronomy 20:1-17 say that the enemies must convert his enemies. No where does it say that these non-Hebrew people should follow God. The invasion of Canaan was an invasion, not a conversion of the enemies.

A number of non-Hebrew/Israelite individuals in the OT Bible or Tanakh, followed the religion of the Jews, because they had freely chosen to follow the religion of the Israelites, eg Moses' father-in-law, Ruth and possibly Job (it is not certain what nationality Job is).

The God of the Tanakh or the OT Bible only seek worship from the descendants of Jacob (also known as "Israel", when Jacob returned home to Canaan), because of the original covenant that started off with Abraham. The covenant (Genesis 17) stated that the land of Canaan will belong to his descendants, one day, and this same covenant was told to Isaac and Jacob. God had chosen the twelve tribes of Israel to be the people to worship him.

This God and his covenant to Abraham (and Isaac and Jacob, and repeated again to Moses) is not about having non-Israelite joining the religion that the Israelites have to follow. It is not about conversion of other races or other nations.

What the books of Tanakh does show that God would punish the Israelites when they stray to other religions, worshipping other gods, but after some time, he would accept them back and forgive them.

So your reply to arcanum - your interpretation of Deuteronomy 20 really have no bearing on the topic of this thread, or on arcanum's valid points.

Muhammad on the other hand, did fight war against Mecccans and against some Jewish tribes living in Arabia.

With the Banu Qurayza, he didn't spare the men who didn't convert to Islam; he had the rest of the men beheaded, and women and children sold to slavery, if they were taken as war captive slavery.

And Muhammad did have the idols of old religion destroyed in Mecca. Why destroy any idol at all? That's not the sign of religion tolerance.

Even before the empire after Muhammad's death (referring to the time of Mecca's surrender and his death), his army was involved in a conquest for the entire Arabian peninsula. This conquest was initiated by Muhammad, which demonstrated that Islam was spread by his army. Whether there were actual fighting or not, that he had a large army that could intimidate any small towns to surrender without fighting, is still compulsion.

It is surrender or die; that's compulsion. And if even the town or village surrender without fight, you give them a choice of convert or pay tax and be branded with status of second citizen, that's also compulsion.

Where as Judaism don't seek conversion from non-Jewish or non-Hebrew people, is the difference between their religion and that of Islam and Christianity. Islam actively seek converts.

Tell me, paarsurrey. Muhammad have already gained Medina and Mecca; why did he need to spread beyond these two cities, and go on conquest of the entire peninsula? Why seek converts from other tribes and other towns?

 

[Moishe3rd]

I think the phrase "spread by the sword" has become associated with Islam by other cultures due to recent history - mainly the conquest of the Arabian Peninsula by the Saudis and then the 20th and 21st Century death cults that have proliferated all over the world from this successful conquest and the establishment of its Wahhabi Cult.
However, historically, Islam was no more "spread by the sword" than was any other religion or culture throughout history in every corner of planet Earth.

The Arabs were a "raiding culture." This simply meant that tribes and clans and families preyed on other tribes and clans and families in a never ending ritual of small time warfare with various rules of conduct.
When Mohammad preached his new religion in Mecca, they were not particularly interested. So - he "fled" to Yathrib (Medina) where he gained a reputation as an honest judge and where he convinced some of the tribes of his teachings.
What did that get them? They became part of the "Muslim tribe" which means that they were united against the other tribes. That was big Juju! Mohammad kept recruiting for his bigger and bigger Muslim tribe. And, of course any tribe that was NOT Muslim was fair game to be conquered/ raided/ and subjected to the Laws of Islam. That is how things worked. That is pretty much how things always worked all over the planet. The Arabs just got very good at it very quickly.
However, as a matter of history, when they initially began conquering non Arab peoples - they did not want them to "convert" to Islam, believing that it was only an Arab religion.
But, the conquered peoples wanted to adopt the religion of their conquerors (which was also a normal thing to do) and, Islam expanded too rapidly to enable the conquerors to only have Arab rulers and tax collectors and police and janitors and petty bureaucrats so, everybody got to be Muslim!
And thus it went for a thousand years or so until Islam got conquered by Europe and the Saudis finally conquered Mecca and Medina, set up their own petty kingdom and began this new cycle of their heresy which was; and is, indeed - "convert to a particular Flavor of Muslim god or die!"
It was the Saudis who let that Djinn out of the bottle!

 

[gnostic]

I think the phrase "spread by the sword" has become associated with Islam by other cultures due to recent history - mainly the conquest of the Arabian Peninsula by the Saudis and then the 20th and 21st Century death cults that have proliferated all over the world from this successful conquest and the establishment of its Wahhabi Cult.

Well, I wasn't talking about the Wahhabi.

I was talking more about Muhammad, and is conquest of the Arabian peninsula, after the surrender of Mecca.

He took punitive measures, on those he "believe" have wronged him or his religion or Allah himself.

Muhammad could have spread Islam through sending out unarmed disciples of his, to spread the words of the new religion. He didn't.

Instead he marched his army of warriors throughout the peninsula. Of course, most submit without a fight, but that still intimidation and compulsion.

The whole idea that Islam is a religion of peace would be more believable if he didn't have army at his beck and call.

The Arabs were a "raiding culture." This simply meant that tribes and clans and families preyed on other tribes and clans and families in a never ending ritual of small time warfare with various rules of conduct.
When Mohammad preached his new religion in Mecca, they were not particularly interested. So - he "fled" to Yathrib (Medina) where he gained a reputation as an honest judge and where he convinced some of the tribes of his teachings.

But he didn't stop the raiding. Muhammad wasn't an exception to the rule, here too.

If anything, he and smaller followers did exactly the same thing as those raiding tribes have done, when he began raiding Meccan caravans, plundering them. How's that different from Arab raiding culture?

What did that get them? They became part of the "Muslim tribe" which means that they were united against the other tribes. That was big Juju! Mohammad kept recruiting for his bigger and bigger Muslim tribe. And, of course any tribe that was NOT Muslim was fair game to be conquered/ raided/ and subjected to the Laws of Islam. That is how things worked. That is pretty much how things always worked all over the planet. The Arabs just got very good at it very quickly.
However, as a matter of history, when they initially began conquering non Arab peoples - they did not want them to "convert" to Islam, believing that it was only an Arab religion.
But, the conquered peoples wanted to adopt the religion of their conquerors (which was also a normal thing to do) and, Islam expanded too rapidly to enable the conquerors to only have Arab rulers and tax collectors and police and janitors and petty bureaucrats so, everybody got to be Muslim!

That's not strictly true.

Muhammad, or more precisely his warriors/followers went about destroying idols of other religions. Not satisfied with winning Mecca's surrender, his army went through eastern Arabia, and they began destroying more idols.

That's not the sign of religious freedom or religious tolerance.

If Muhammad truly wanted peace, he didn't need an army. If he wanted religious freedom, he didn't need to destroy idols.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, I have. Only four verses mention Muhammad. If you stick solely to the Quran, you cannot reconstruct Muhammad's personality. How are you supposed to imitate someone that you don't know?

Why is that necessary?

 

[paarsurrey]

How does one know who is and who is not "misusing" the scripture?

Is diverting attention away from the truth a sign?
How about full blown denial of the facts?

What one does if there is a difference in science?
Regards