Was Islam spread by the sword?

[outhouse]

Was Islam spread by the sword?

yes

FROM YOUR LINK

The emergence of Islam in the region took place at the same time as the Turko-Muslim invasion of medieval India


MY sources are credible.


This trend was reversed during the Mysore invasions of the late 18th century.

during invasion of North Kerala by Tipu Sultan, he forcefully converted many Hindus to Islam

 

[paarsurrey]

Further to Posts #2717, #2720 , #2722, and #2942 in response to OP's Post #1 I have to add:
Those who doubt that Islam spread peacefully in times of Muhammad they should focus on spread of Ahmadiyya true Islam, If it has happened now peacefully, it should be a clear sign for the doubtful that Islam spread peacefully in times of Muhammad.
I gave how Ahmadiyya spread peacefully in Argentina post #2430, Australia Post #2460 , Austria Post #2489, Bangladesh Post #2513, Belarus Post #2535, Belgium Post#2556, Belize #2571, Bulgaria Post #2595, Cameroon Post #2619, Canada Post #2636,Chad Post #2651,Congo #2672, Denmark #2703, Egypt #2824, Fiji #2883, France #2942, Germany #3025, Ghana #3102 , Guatemala #3149,.

• Now I give peaceful spread of Ahmadiyya true Islam in
  
  India [1]

Jalsa Salana Qadian, India 2015 Documentary

All objectives of Ahmadiyya true Islam are peaceful.

• Country:
  
  India :Ahmadiyya population : 1,000,000 estimate of 200,000 Ahmadi

• Percentage (%) of Muslims : 0.6 % : Percentage (%) of population :0.1 %

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya_by_country


Does one see any sword used for spread of Ahmadiyya true Islam in

India?
Isn't it a glorious sign for the wise? Please

Regards

 

[gnostic]

Islam spread to Kerala, India, very peacefully in the times of Muhammad in the seventh century by the efforts of the Arab traders, there was no invasion or attack.

It may have started off peaceful when the first traders arrived. And I have already mentioned these traders in past replies about Islam in India.

But there were invasions later, from the 8th century onwards. Repeated attacks by one group of Muslims after another, that have been going on for centuries. Conversion spread quicker after these invasions.

So are you going ignore that?

You have the tendency of only presenting a fraction of Islamic history in India. This mean you are only willing to share information only when it fit your agenda, so you don't often share other details.

You normally quote from wiki. Did you bother to read and include part, like for instance, about Muhammad bin Qasim, who invaded northern India, in wiki's Islam in India?

Then there is Mahmud of Ghazni, (10th century), Ghazi Saiyyad Salar Masud (11th century) and Muhammad of Ghor (12th century). Look these Muslims up.

Read the bottom part of Early History of Islam in India - Islam in India; here is the quote, which you have so conveniently ignored:

In the 8th century, the province of Sindh (in present-day Pakistan) was conquered by an Arab army led by Muhammad bin Qasim. Sindh became the easternmost province of the Umayyad Caliphate.

In the first half of the 10th century, Mahmud of Ghazni added the Punjab to the Ghaznavid Empire and conducted 17 raids on modern-day India. In the 11th century, Ghazi Saiyyad Salar Masud played a significant role in the conversion of locals (Hindus) to Islam. A more successful invasion came at the end of the 12th century by Muhammad of Ghor. This eventually led to the formation of the Delhi Sultanate.

Read wiki on Ghazi Saiyyad Salar Masud in the India Campaign:

Mirat-i-Masudi states that Salar Masud, driven by martial and religious fervour, asked the Ghaznavid emperor to be allowed to march to India and spread Islam there.

Nevertheless, the Hindu chiefs of Bahraich kept troubling his army, so Salar Masud himself arrived in Bahraich, in 1033 CE. There, he saw a Hindu shrine beside a tank, and wished he could destroy it and reside there.

These are not "peaceful" actions, nor is it "defensive" wars or raids.

Why don't get to your head, invasions are never defensive or peaceful action?

 

[outhouse]

These are not "peaceful"

Agreed


They are violent

 

[outhouse]

Obviously the violence has never stopped.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...usic-and-missing-friday-prayers-a6881306.html


Isis 'beheads teenage boys for listening to pop music and missing Friday prayers'

 

[paarsurrey]

Obviously the violence has never stopped.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...usic-and-missing-friday-prayers-a6881306.html
Isis 'beheads teenage boys for listening to pop music and missing Friday prayers'

There is no such teachings in Quran , they do it on their own and they will suffer for doing against teachings of Quran/Muhammad/Islam. It is not difficult to understand.
Regards

 

[outhouse]

There is no such teachings in Quran ,

Sure there is

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Many places in the Quran say to kill nonbelievers. Ambush them. Behead them.

 

[gnostic]

In India, while they began peaceful, Muslims became increasingly aggressive.

They could have spread peacefully in India, but they took advantage of the Indians who gave them a place to worship. But clearly it wasn't enough, for why else Muslims take more and more territories from the India, from the 8th century to the 12th?

By controlling the land, they can spread faster.

 

[paarsurrey]

India is a sub-continent in which many independent states have amalgamated. The present "India" is a misnomer, the name is "Bharat":

Should India be Called 'Bharat'? Supreme Court Asks Centre, States
ww.ndtv.com/india-news/should-india-be-called-bharat-supreme-court-asks-centre-states-757868
Regards

 

[outhouse]

The present "India" is a misnomer

NON SEQUITUR to the violence used by islam to spread through the country

 

[Shad]

Was Islam spread by the sword?

Islam spread to Kerala, India, very peacefully in the times of Muhammad in the seventh century by the efforts of the Arab traders, there was no invasion or attack. Right? Please
Regards

This thread is not about a specific time, place nor person but the religion as a whole. Pointing out that it was spread peaceful at a specific point in time does nothing, zero, to refute the times it wasn't spread peacefully.

 

[paarsurrey]

NON SEQUITUR to the violence used by islam to spread through the country

What does "NON SEQUITUR " mean?
Please tell your own understanding, not from a lexicon.
Regards

 

[outhouse]

It means it does not matter and holds no relevance to the topic.


It means your always moving goal post

 

[paarsurrey]

Reference post #3231
The India sub-continent has seldom been under one rule.In fact it has been many states/countries in it.
SubcontinentalCountries Bangladesh,Bhutan,India,Maldives,Pakistan,Nepal,Sri Lanka.
Historians Catherine Asher and Cynthia Tablot have criticized the use of the Indian subcontinent, excluding Afghanistan, as the basis of Indian history. They note that Afghanistan and even parts of Central Asia were included in a polity based in South Asia several times in history and the cultural impact of Indian civiliation was felt in these areas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_subcontinent
Sometimes even Assam, Burma or even some part of China are also included.
We can therefore each or every unit of it take separately as there have been no fixed boundaries of the units.
Regards

 

[gnostic]

India is a sub-continent in which many independent states have amalgamated. The present "India" is a misnomer, the name is "Bharat":

Should India be Called 'Bharat'? Supreme Court Asks Centre, States
ww.ndtv.com/india-news/should-india-be-called-bharat-supreme-court-asks-centre-states-757868
Regards

When I am talking about India in the past, both pre- and post-Muslim arrival, I am often referring to any group of people living on the entire Indian subcontinent.

And you are still ignoring my points.

You quoted from the wikipedia, about Muslims first arriving in India, as peaceful traders, but you have completely ignored that same article (Islam in India), in that same section (Early history of Islam in India), in which the following centuries (from the 8th century to the 12th century), Muslims were not so peaceful, and began invading other parts of the subcontinent.

Here is a complete copy-and-paste of that section about early history of Islam in India:

Trade relations have existed between Arabia and the Indian subcontinent since ancient times. Even in the pre-Islamic era, Arab traders used to visit the Konkan-Gujarat coast and Malabar region, which linked them with the ports of South East Asia. Newly Islamised Arabs were Islam's first contact with India. The historians Elliot and Dowson say in their book The History of India as told by its own Historians, the first ship bearing Muslim travellers was seen on the Indian coast as early as 630 AD. H.G. Rawlinson, in his book: Ancient and Medieval History of India[26] claims the first Arab Muslims settled on the Indian coast in the last part of the 7th century AD. Shaykh Zainuddin Makhdum's "Tuhfat al-Mujahidin" is also a reliable work.[27] This fact is corroborated, by J. Sturrock in his South Kanara and Madras Districts Manuals,[28] and also by Haridas Bhattacharya in Cultural Heritage of India Vol. IV.[29] It was with the advent of Islam that the Arabs became a prominent cultural force in the world. The Arab merchants and traders became the carriers of the new religion and they propagated it wherever they went.[30]

The first Indian mosque, Cheraman Juma Masjid, is thought to have been built in 629 AD by Malik Bin Deenar.[31][32][33][34]

In Malabar, the Mappilas may have been the first community to convert to Islam.[citation needed] Intensive missionary activities were carried out along the coast and many natives also embraced Islam. These new converts were now added to the Mappila community. Thus among the Mappilas, we find, both the descendants of the Arabs through local women and the converts from among the local people.[citation needed]

In the 8th century, the province of Sindh (in present-day Pakistan) was conquered by an Arab army led by Muhammad bin Qasim. Sindh became the easternmost province of the Umayyad Caliphate.


In the first half of the 10th century, Mahmud of Ghazni added the Punjab to the Ghaznavid Empire and conducted 17 raids on modern-day India. In the 11th century, Ghazi Saiyyad Salar Masud played a significant role in the conversion of locals (Hindus) to Islam. A more successful invasion came at the end of the 12th century by Muhammad of Ghor. This eventually led to the formation of the Delhi Sultanate.

The part that I highlighted in red, is the section that you have chosen to ignore, when Muslims began raiding and conquering. That's not peaceful action.

And that you didn't include this part of the article, demonstrated your lack of integrity, when providing sources.

Now are you going to address my points or question from my last reply to you?

 

[paarsurrey]

The rulers or the princes are just individuals in a religion. They can do any right or wrong and they are only accountable for their action just like an ordinary person. This world is a place of actions for which one will be accountable in the hereafter as mention by G-d in Quran. Such princes do not represent Quran/Islam/Muhammad as a model. They could kill/invade/conquer any place, they even fought with the Muslim dynasties, so that was only politics of those days. Islam did not and does need them for its spread.
Nevertheless, Islam was and is the most peaceful revealed religion and spread peacefully in almost every part of the world due to its simple,straightforward and matter of fact teachings.
I don't agree with your approach.
India is a sub-continent, not one state. It consisted/consists on an amalgamation of states/countries, each one of them must be viewed separately for correct understanding of the spread of Islam. Please
Regards

 

[Shad]

The rulers or the princes are just individuals in a religion. They can do any right or wrong and they are only accountable for their action just like an ordinary person. This world is a place of actions for which one will be accountable in the hereafter as mention by G-d in Quran. Such princes do not represent Quran/Islam/Muhammad as a model. They could kill/invade/conquer any place, they even fought with the Muslim dynasties, so that was only politics of those days. Islam did not and does need them for its spread.
Nevertheless, Islam was and is the most peaceful revealed religion and spread peacefully in almost every part of the world due to its simple,straightforward and matter of fact teachings.
I don't agree with your approach.
India is a sub-continent, not one state. It consisted/consists on an amalgamation of states/countries, each one of them must be viewed separately for correct understanding of the spread of Islam. Please
Regards

You are using a double standard in which "good" peoples acts count but "bad" peoples acts do not. Your reasoning is fallacious.

 

[outhouse]

Your reasoning is fallacious.

At BEST!

 

[paarsurrey]

You are using a double standard in which "good" peoples acts count but "bad" peoples acts do not. Your reasoning is fallacious.

Acts done in accordance of the teachings of G-d contained in Quran are only good, acts done against the teachings of Quran are bad. There are no double standard, Quran is the standard and norm.
Regards