Was Islam spread by the sword?

[Britedream]

Yes I have read it. It is an excellent book.

What is your point?

You are not answering my question, please go back and read it, and answer the question.

Thanks.

 

[Augustus]

You are not answering my question, please go back and read it, and answer the question.

Thanks.

They are not verbatim quotes although they do relate to content discussed in the book. They seem like summaries of a small proportion of the book's content written by somebody who is not the author.

Instead of playing some bizarre game, why not just say what your point is?

 

[Britedream]

They are not verbatim quotes although they do relate to content discussed in the book. They seem like summaries of a small proportion of the book's content written by somebody who is not the author.

Instead of playing some bizarre game, why not just say what your point is?

if what quoted is not correct, please go ahead and correct it. there is no game here, it is from a review made on amazon site. and you said, you read the book, I need you to confirm, if that is what has been said is in the book.

 

[Augustus]

if what quoted is not correct, please go ahead and correct it. there is no game here, it is from a review made on amazon site. and you said, you read the book, I need you to confirm, if that is what has been said is in the book.

The book is 300 pages long.

Why not make your point and we can discuss it?

As I have said, those points are broadly correct, although they are only a small part of a 300 page book.

 

[paarsurrey]

Expanding Note # 54 in Post #2460 of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Australia#Ahmadiyya:


THE HILLS
Marsden Park mosque hosts world Muslim leader

Mirza Masroor Ahmad, the fifth Khalifa (Caliph) and the head of the worldwide Ahmadiyya Muslim community, greeted by followers at the Baitul Huda Mosque in Marsden Park

THE Muslim equivalent of the Pope has arrived in Australia and will visit with his followers in the Marsden Park area this weekend.

Caliph of Islam Mirza Masroor Ahmad is in Australia speaking with the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.
He is visiting the Baitul Huda Mosque at Marsden Park, where he will spend up to three minutes with each family, speaking about their issues and sharing his message of peace, harmony and love.
On the weekend, more than 4000 Muslims are expected to visit the Marsden Park mosque to speak with or catch a glimpse of him.
He will also lead tomorrow's prayers at the mosque.
Mirza Sharif, who is from the Marsden Park Ahmadiyya community, said having the Caliph visit was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
"Families will line up and spend up to three minutes with His Holiness to talk about their troubles," he said.
"He is the equivalent of the Pope in our religion - he is elected the same way as the Pope and our Muslim community is the only in the world to be lead by one person."
The Caliph said where he goes, his main purpose was to "meet the community, see the progress and how they're doing".
His advice to individuals to help create peace was to discharge themselves with respect in the community.
"We are all creations of God and God loves his creations, therefore we need to behave in a manner of good," he said.
When the Caliph was elected as the leader for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in 2003, he said he didn't know until the last minute.
This is despite having dedicated his life to the community at the age of 27.
"An election was held ... like the election of the Pope is held," he said.
"Nobody knows which name is proposed, but there is an electoral call where heads of different countries, missionaries and executive members vote."
He said if he'd known that he would become the leader, he would have "run to the hills".
At the time of being elected as Caliph, he was the head of Ahmadiyya in Pakistan.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ld-muslim-leader/story-fngr8i1f-1226732120166

Regards

 

[Britedream]

The book is 300 pages long.

Why not make your point and we can discuss it?

As I have said, those points are broadly correct, although they are only a small part of a 300 page book.

Thank you.
But with all respect what you showed me are just a fairy tails. please allow me to let you see it.

2. The early Arab raids were not a planned or coherent war of conquest against 'unbelievers' but were more opportunistic raids undertaken by a nomadic people to extract as much wealth as possible while the Romans and Persian empires entered a prolonged period of decline and central authority and control collapsed. The Arabs were thus similar to the various Gothic tribes that raided Roman territory away from the Imperial capital and subsequently took over entire provinces as the Western Roman empire entered a state of prolonged unrest and civil war. In this, the Arabs were not alone, for raiders like the Avars, Khazars, Turks also tried to raid these 2 empires but were undone by geography - the Arabs were coming from the South and entering territory that was less strongly controlled and with fewer natural barriers and so gained a large amount of territory without facing too many barriers.

4. Muhammad was one of many Arab warlords of the time and creating a broadbased monotheistic coalition, he possibly led one group of Arabs out of the Hejaz to raid Palestine. Unlike traditional Islamic narratives that place his demise in 632 AD before the Arab conquest of Palestine, non-Muslim documents like the Doctrina Jacobi and even Sebeos seem to stat that he was alive and leading the conquests, certainly in the early stages, though he may have died before Palestine fell to the Arabs.

In the quotes above, Muhammad is warlord raiding Palestine for money, yet he spent thirteen years in his home town as warlord, not fighting with anyone. and when he decided to leave his home town, he did so, heading an army of one man.

The warlord your academic book talks about, that he is raiding Palestine for money,he is on the other telling his army, fight only those who fights you, and do not be the aggressor, and only fight in the way of God, as you see in the ayah below:

2:190
Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

So What your book describes the man, and what he is telling his army to do are two different things.

Now onto your fairy tail:

He is enslaving many human for money, yet he let them go free.

Please see the fllowing Ayat:

90:12
Ah, what will convey unto thee what the Ascent is!

90:13
(it is)to free a slave.

Prophet Muhammad ( pbuh) never led an army in Palestine, period.

I have shown you what type of evidence you provided. you have shown your inability to put a valid argument, and your claims lack the foundation.That concludes my discussion with you. Thank you.

Stay well.

 

[Augustus]

In the quotes above, Muhammad is warlord raiding Palestine for money, yet he spent thirteen years in his home town as warlord, not fighting with anyone. and when he decided to leave his home town, he did so, heading an army of one man.

This is the problem when you use a review off an Amazon site rather than actually reading the book itself. To be honest the book barely mentions Muhammed as it is a work of academic history, and Muhammed is not really mentioned much in sources written before the 8th century. I'll explain...

You are treating the too summaries as being part of the same point, they are not.

The first one talked about the Arabs, not Muhammed. Arabs were raiding the Roman Empire before Muhammed was even born. What this part of the book is doing is to put the Arab conquests into a larger political context. They didn't exist in a vacuum of course.

It was not only the Arabs who were attacking the Romans also, the Arabs were just one of several ethnic groups in various regions at various times who were attacking.

Arab raids didn't start with Muhammed, they started earlier. Also seeing as nobody from the conquered people, for at least 75 years, realised that the Arabs had a new religion. They certainly weren't trying to spread a new religion at this point, just conquer, plunder and demand tribute.

This is based on written historical sources, not the Muslim history that was only written 200 years later.

Prophet Muhammad ( pbuh) never led an army in Palestine, period.

Again, you don't understand the point being made. What it says is "non-Muslim documents like the Doctrina Jacobi and even Sebeos seem to stat that he was alive and leading the conquests,", this is reporting a fact. The Doctrina Jacobi was a text written around 634-40, it is a historical document. Seeing as there are no written Muslim historical records outside of the Quran from this era, then it is some of the most useful information available.

It's not making the point that Muhammed WAS alive, it is making the point that the Doctrina Jabobi, factually, SAYS he was alive. It's even acknowledged that this may be a mistake, there is no way of actually knowing for a fact. The islamic history was written 200 years later though, so using the normal standards of historical enquiry, it should be treated with scepticism.

You can read more about the Doctrina here if you like:

https://www.academia.edu/3689606/_M...te_Antique_Puzzle_Der_Islam_91.2_2014_243-265

The idea that Muhammed was still alive at the time of the attack on Palestine is discussed in more detail in Steven Shoemaker - Death of a Prophet if you are interested. There are several sources, all of which predate the earliest written Muslim history that make the same claim. They might all be wrong, but a real historian, rather than a hagigrapher, would have to take this evidence into account.

I have shown you what type of evidence you provided. you have shown your inability to put a valid argument, and your claims lack the foundation.That concludes my discussion with you. Thank you.

The type of evidence I provided was based on the earliest existing sources discussing this area of history. This is the highest standard of evidence in historical enquiry. On the other hand, you quoted religious scripture.

You also ignore the historical fact that the Arabs were massive slave traders. There is so much evidence for this that nobody denies it, unless they are truly ignorant and blinded by religious hagiography.

You have no idea what a valid argument is or what evidence is. Academic history doesn't accept the mythology and hagiography of the Islamic narrative as being fact, just as it doesn't treat the Christian and Jewish histories as being fact (just like you don't).

Believe your mythology all you like, but when you want to discuss what actually happened, you need to look at actual evidence not simply what you want to believe is true.

 

[Britedream]

This is the problem when you use a review off an Amazon site rather than actually reading the book itself. To be honest the book barely mentions Muhammed as it is a work of academic history, and Muhammed is not really mentioned much in sources written before the 8th century. I'll explain...

You are treating the too summaries as being part of the same point, they are not.

The first one talked about the Arabs, not Muhammed. Arabs were raiding the Roman Empire before Muhammed was even born. What this part of the book is doing is to put the Arab conquests into a larger political context. They didn't exist in a vacuum of course.

It was not only the Arabs who were attacking the Romans also, the Arabs were just one of several ethnic groups in various regions at various times who were attacking.

Arab raids didn't start with Muhammed, they started earlier. Also seeing as nobody from the conquered people, for at least 75 years, realised that the Arabs had a new religion. They certainly weren't trying to spread a new religion at this point, just conquer, plunder and demand tribute.

This is based on written historical sources, not the Muslim history that was only written 200 years later.



Again, you don't understand the point being made. What it says is "non-Muslim documents like the Doctrina Jacobi and even Sebeos seem to stat that he was alive and leading the conquests,", this is reporting a fact. The Doctrina Jacobi was a text written around 634-40, it is a historical document. Seeing as there are no written Muslim historical records outside of the Quran from this era, then it is some of the most useful information available.

It's not making the point that Muhammed WAS alive, it is making the point that the Doctrina Jabobi, factually, SAYS he was alive. It's even acknowledged that this may be a mistake, there is no way of actually knowing for a fact. The islamic history was written 200 years later though, so using the normal standards of historical enquiry, it should be treated with scepticism.

You can read more about the Doctrina here if you like:

https://www.academia.edu/3689606/_M...te_Antique_Puzzle_Der_Islam_91.2_2014_243-265

The idea that Muhammed was still alive at the time of the attack on Palestine is discussed in more detail in Steven Shoemaker - Death of a Prophet if you are interested. There are several sources, all of which predate the earliest written Muslim history that make the same claim. They might all be wrong, but a real historian, rather than a hagigrapher, would have to take this evidence into account.



The type of evidence I provided was based on the earliest existing sources discussing this area of history. This is the highest standard of evidence in historical enquiry. On the other hand, you quoted religious scripture.

You also ignore the historical fact that the Arabs were massive slave traders. There is so much evidence for this that nobody denies it, unless they are truly ignorant and blinded by religious hagiography.

You have no idea what a valid argument is or what evidence is. Academic history doesn't accept the mythology and hagiography of the Islamic narrative as being fact, just as it doesn't treat the Christian and Jewish histories as being fact (just like you don't).

Believe your mythology all you like, but when you want to discuss what actually happened, you need to look at actual evidence not simply what you want to believe is true.

This is your reply when I saked you you about the The quotes I talked about:

They seem like summaries of a small proportion of the book's content written by somebody who is not the author.

[

1- So you are acknowledging the quote to be correct. but when you saw my reply to you, you retracted.


2- The subject of the thread is "Was Islam spread by the sword". and you responded to my first post on this base, talking about the Islamic Empire. now you are claiming the opposite .

I must say, you proved my points in my reply regarding your inability. So let us not to run in a circle.

 

[Augustus]

1- So you are acknowledging the quote to be correct. but when you saw my reply to you, you retracted.

"They seem like summaries of a small proportion of the book's content", I then corrected your misinterpretation of this small proportion of the books content.

Explaining why you were misinterpreting what was said is very different to 'retracting'. For example, I explained the difference between arguing Muhammed was alive and quoting a 7th C source which implied he was alive. Also the difference between talking about Muhammed and talking about the Arabs.

Neither of these you understood, seems you still don't understand. You need to read a bit more carefully.

Just because you don't understand though, doesn't make it wrong.

2- The subject of the thread is "Was Islam spread by the sword". and you responded to my first post on this base, talking about the Islamic Empire. now you claiming the opposite .

As I have said, look at my posts before you joined the thread where I said I don't think it is correct to say Islam was spread by the sword.

My initial reply to you was regarding your statement that the Islamic empire was amazingly 'fair and just'. I disagree because it practiced slavery on a massive scale. The slavery is a fact, not an 'anti-Islam conspiracy'. If you had even a very basic knowledge of history, you would know this.

I was just correcting your statement that the empires were fair and just, not talking about spread by the sword as I had already discussed that earlier in the thread.

I must say, you proved my points in my reply regarding your inability. So let us not to run in a circle.

All you have proved is that you know nothing about academic history, and don't even know about Islamic history either. All you have shown is that you can quote the Quran, but this demonstrates your inability to distinguish between history and theology.

You might well know some theology, you sure as hell don't know the first thing about history or the process of rational historical enquiry though.

 

[Britedream]

"They seem like summaries of a small proportion of the book's content", I then corrected your misinterpretation of this small proportion of the books content.

Explaining why you were misinterpreting what was said is very different to 'retracting'. For example, I explained the difference between arguing Muhammed was alive and quoting a 7th C source which implied he was alive. Also the difference between talking about Muhammed and talking about the Arabs.

Neither of these you understood, seems you still don't understand. You need to read a bit more carefully.

Just because you don't understand though, doesn't make it wrong.



As I have said, look at my posts before you joined the thread where I said I don't think it is correct to say Islam was spread by the sword.

My initial reply to you was regarding your statement that the Islamic empire was amazingly 'fair and just'. I disagree because it practiced slavery on a massive scale. The slavery is a fact, not an 'anti-Islam conspiracy'. If you had even a very basic knowledge of history, you would know this.

I was just correcting your statement that the empires were fair and just, not talking about spread by the sword as I had already discussed that earlier in the thread.



All you have proved is that you know nothing about academic history, and don't even know about Islamic history either. All you have shown is that you can quote the Quran, but this demonstrates your inability to distinguish between history and theology.

You might well know some theology, you sure as hell don't know the first thing about history or the process of rational historical enquiry though.

You are amazing, is not the man who is representing Islam, whom you are accusing of enslaving human, isn't he the same man freeing the slaves?, as I indicated to you above. are you denying that Muhammad said the Ayat above?.

Any way, you are not adding anything new, so I will leave it at that. have a good day.

 

[pro4life]

Islam has always been a thorn in the side of India, if not absolute nightmare, up until today. Millions slaughtered, enslaved, the people and their holy places looted, etc. Enforcement of a caste system would spring up and dissolve over and over again before and after Islamic rule.

How has India actually benefited from Islam? Islam in India is probably the biggest tragedy in world history.

Says you.

 

[pro4life]

Yes, I agreed to both of your posts, pro4life.

Being "spread by sword" is REALLY NOT the problem for me.

Like you said, many kingdoms and empires have expanded their borders through wars and conquests.

It is paarsurrey and few other Muslims here, who deny it ever occurred. Paarsurrey repeated copy-and-paste from Wiki articles, showed that he is not interested in debate, and sadly in self-denial the history of Muhammad and the later successive Islamic empires.

Not long after Muhammad's death, there was even power struggle among Muslim factions (like civil war).

Paarsurrey is even self-denial, that not all conquests were self-defence actions.

They attacked (the then Byzantine) Syria and Persia, not long after Muhammad's passing. Those were actions of not defensive warfare, but offensive ones. You may think the Muslim army were liberators, but they are still offensive wars.

And the main reason why the Arabs won these campaigns is that there have been decades of series of battles between Persians and Byzantines, before Muhammad was born. Both sides were seriously weakened during 610s and 620s.

The whole attack-only-in-defense Muslims should only attack when being attacked, is a myth, as far Muslim history is concerned.

Even today, there are some Muslims pining over the lost empires, but they refused to learn the lessons of the past. My problems with some Muslims here, is that they want to change history, only remembering the goods, not the bads.

The self-denials and attempts to their "Islamic" history, only makes today's Muslims like "liars" and propagandists.

I heard that one before, "Both byzantines and the persians were weakened before the conquest of the arab muslims". This is just a statement to belittle the effort the arab muslims accomplished during a short period of time. They took down which was the time the 2 largest empires in the world. Its like saying the country of Belize attacking the United states and destroying it in the matter of 10 years. Be fair and give credit where credit belongs.

 

[Augustus]

I heard that one before, "Both byzantines and the persians were weakened before the conquest of the arab muslims". This is just a statement to belittle the effort the arab muslims accomplished during a short period of time. They took down which was the time the 2 largest empires in the world. Its like saying the country of Belize attacking the United states and destroying it in the matter of 10 years. Be fair and give credit where credit belongs.

You have a very poor understanding of history. It's nothing that is comparable to modern warfare and certainly not remotely similar to Belize defeating America.

There had been plague which killed maybe 1/3 of the population and the Persians and Romans had been fighting destructive wars for a decade. As a result many of the experienced and battle hardened troops were dead and the remaining troops were often inexperienced (a major problem in this era). Because so many people died in the plague, tax revenues dropped meaning less money for armies and also less people to form the armies (remember, they also needed people to work the fields).

When the Romans invaded Persia they had around 50,000 troops for the decisive battles. This was pretty much the total of their army in the region. After the war they had fewer than this and the Persian were very weak indeed.

Also many of these soldiers were Arab mercenaries, both sides had been paying Arabs to fight for them for centuries. Basically, the Roman Army was mostly Arab mercenaries supported by inexperienced troops.

Arab raiders realised this when they attacked Rome and found little resistance, this predated Muhammed. With each success, more Arabs deserted the Romans and joined the insurgents and the Arab conquests started. These conquests involved Jewish and Christian Arabs also.

To defeat the Romans, they basically won 1 major battle, which you know as Yarmuk. There was probably not much difference in size between the 2 armies (remember the size of the Roman Army V the Persians) and the Arabs won decisively. After this, there were no other Roman armies to fight. Their other armies were in places like the Balkans and were needed to defend these territories. The Roman Middle East was now largely undefended and the Arabs could easily conquer it all and most of the remaining Roman Arabs joined them.

The Persians had even fewer troops than the Romans and were easily defeated.

You also have to note that there are no natural defences in the region to stop an advancing army.

The Arabs were indeed impressive fighters (although certainly not all Muslims) and their conquests were also very impressive, they were not 'miraculous' though. The Mongols, for example, conquered significantly more territory in less time.

Basically, the Arabs won an impressive victory that is significant in the history of warfare. It should not be seen as miraculous though, as based on any criteria, there are more remarkable victories by numerous others all over the world.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Says you.

What do you mean by this? Are you personally attacking Sees?

 

[YmirGF]

Outstanding contributions @Augustus ... you are quickly becoming a genuine RF treasure. If only people had a fraction of your grasp of history. I, for one, am quite impressed.

 

[paarsurrey]

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

Islam is the largest minority religion in Belgium, practiced by an estimated 6% of the total population. [1] 98% of the Belgian Muslims belong to theSunni denomination, the rest are Shia (mainly Alevi). In Brussels Muslims cover 25.5% of the population, in Wallonia 4.0%, and 3.9% in Flanders.[2]

Population[edit]

A 2011 estimation by Belgian academic Jan Hertogen shows that more than 900,000[3][source needs translation] people have a foreign background from Islamic countries.

A 2008 estimation shows[4][source needs translation] that 6% of the Belgian population, about 628,751, is Muslim, either Sunni, Shia, Alevi, and a small population of Ahmadi. Muslims cover 25.5% of the population of Brussels, 4.0% of Wallonia and 3.9% of Flanders. The majority of Belgian Muslims live in the major cities, such as Antwerp, Brussels and Charleroi.

According to estimates released in 2007 by sociologist Jan Hertogen, the largest group of immigrants in Belgium, numbering 264,974, are Moroccans. The Turks are the third-largest group, and the second-largest Muslim ethnic group, numbering 159,336. These estimates are criticized by the General Direction of Statistics and Economical Information (former National Institute for Statistics) because he simply added the global number of naturalized people without taking into account those who died or remigrated afterwards.[5][source needs translation] Other nationalities represented are mostly Arabs, Pakistanis and West Africans. No accurate numbers can be given as religious or ethnic censuses are forbidden in Belgium, and most people with roots in Islamic countries (including Christian Assyrian refugees from Turkey) took the Belgian nationality, their children born in Belgium are more and more born as Belgian citizens and thence do not appear in any statistics.

Moroccan and Turkish immigrants began coming in large numbers to Belgium starting in the 1960s as guest workers. Though the guest-worker program was abolished in 1974, many immigrants stayed and brought their families using family reunification laws. Today the Muslim community continues to grow through marriage migration. More than 60% of Moroccan and Turkish youth marry partners from their home countries.[6][source needs translation]

Since 2009, Mohamed is the most popular given name in Brussels and Antwerp, Belgium's two largest cities.[7][dead link]

Religious infrastructure[edit]

In 1974, Islam was recognized as one of the subsidized religions in Belgium and the Muslim Executive of Belgium was founded in 1996. In 2006, the government gave €6.1 million (US$7.7 million) to Islamic groups.[8]

According to a 2005 Université Libre de Bruxelles study,[need quotation to verify] about 75% of the Muslim population are "practicing Muslims."[8]

There are an estimated 328[8]-380[9] mosques in the country.

I don't see any sword in spread of Islam in Belgium:

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Regards

 

[McBell]

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

Islam is the largest minority religion in Belgium, practiced by an estimated 6% of the total population. [1] 98% of the Belgian Muslims belong to theSunni denomination, the rest are Shia (mainly Alevi). In Brussels Muslims cover 25.5% of the population, in Wallonia 4.0%, and 3.9% in Flanders.[2]

Population[edit]

A 2011 estimation by Belgian academic Jan Hertogen shows that more than 900,000[3][source needs translation] people have a foreign background from Islamic countries.

A 2008 estimation shows[4][source needs translation] that 6% of the Belgian population, about 628,751, is Muslim, either Sunni, Shia, Alevi, and a small population of Ahmadi. Muslims cover 25.5% of the population of Brussels, 4.0% of Wallonia and 3.9% of Flanders. The majority of Belgian Muslims live in the major cities, such as Antwerp, Brussels and Charleroi.

According to estimates released in 2007 by sociologist Jan Hertogen, the largest group of immigrants in Belgium, numbering 264,974, are Moroccans. The Turks are the third-largest group, and the second-largest Muslim ethnic group, numbering 159,336. These estimates are criticized by the General Direction of Statistics and Economical Information (former National Institute for Statistics) because he simply added the global number of naturalized people without taking into account those who died or remigrated afterwards.[5][source needs translation] Other nationalities represented are mostly Arabs, Pakistanis and West Africans. No accurate numbers can be given as religious or ethnic censuses are forbidden in Belgium, and most people with roots in Islamic countries (including Christian Assyrian refugees from Turkey) took the Belgian nationality, their children born in Belgium are more and more born as Belgian citizens and thence do not appear in any statistics.

Moroccan and Turkish immigrants began coming in large numbers to Belgium starting in the 1960s as guest workers. Though the guest-worker program was abolished in 1974, many immigrants stayed and brought their families using family reunification laws. Today the Muslim community continues to grow through marriage migration. More than 60% of Moroccan and Turkish youth marry partners from their home countries.[6][source needs translation]

Since 2009, Mohamed is the most popular given name in Brussels and Antwerp, Belgium's two largest cities.[7][dead link]

Religious infrastructure[edit]

In 1974, Islam was recognized as one of the subsidized religions in Belgium and the Muslim Executive of Belgium was founded in 1996. In 2006, the government gave €6.1 million (US$7.7 million) to Islamic groups.[8]

According to a 2005 Université Libre de Bruxelles study,[need quotation to verify] about 75% of the Muslim population are "practicing Muslims."[8]

There are an estimated 328[8]-380[9] mosques in the country.

I don't see any sword in spread of Islam in Belgium:

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Regards

How about you stop with this nonsense and actually address the examples where Islam was spread by the sword?

 

[paarsurrey]

How about you stop with this nonsense and actually address the examples where Islam was spread by the sword?

Islam in the form of Ahmadiyya has spread in about 206 countries of the world, peacefully, it is a sign the Islam spread peacefully in the time of Muhammad also. Why doesn't one see it?
Regards

 

[McBell]

Islam in the form of Ahmadiyya has spread in about 206 countries of the world, peacefully, it is a sign the Islam spread peacefully in the time of Muhammad also. Why doesn't one see it?
Regards

Except you are not claiming "in the form of Admadiyya" now are you?
No, you claim and I quote: "I don't see any sword in spread of Islam in {insert place here}"

 

[outhouse]

I don't think it is correct to say Islam was spread by the sword.

But wasn't Muhammad involved in a lot of violence and bloodshed in Islam origins ?

Even with no blood Medina was taken over. The battle of Badr, and Uhud