Was Islam spread by the sword?

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

al--talag ---
this right to just to husbend --
the wife not have this right --

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Talaq three times--
tree talaq --
yes--
the veres say tat -
the husbend --have two --time to talaq --in three time
the talaq is finally --
and if he want to retren to his wife
she marrige another husbend and after that returen
it is --bad law
when my english not good
i do not able to explan this qouan teaching --
i can do that in arabic --
if any one want iam abl to explan that in arabic
who husbend --talg his wife three--time

 

[paarsurrey]

Was Islam spread by the sword?

No.

For example:

Spread of Islam in Liberia:

Charles Taylor[edit]

President Charles Taylor promulgated Islam for political reasons. Taylor, an ally of Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi, trained in Libya before returning to Liberia. Taylor's government sent 220 Muslims to Mecca to do Hajj in 2001 and gave the Liberia Muslim's council a prominent building in Monrovia and the designation of two hours of national broadcasting weekly for Islam-related programming.

Destruction of Mosques[edit]

A consequence of the civil war in Liberia was destruction of religious buildings, schools and places of worship across the country. In both the city and towns in urban and rural areas, government and opposition rebel forces destroyed numerous mosques belonging to Liberian Muslims from what government considered enemy ethnic groups.

Several massacres were also committed near mosques and schools. One of the most well known barbaric and gruesome was the Bakerdu Massacre in the mainly Mandingo/Muslim Quardu Gboni District Lofa County on July 12, 1990. Over 400 civilians were killed and later burned alive by Charles Taylor's National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL).

Destroyed buildings still stand on uneven foundations, raddled with bullet holes, demolished walls or simply blasted to skeletal buildings. Such destruction not only led to many faithful followers fleeing their hometowns, cities and villages for refugee camps in Sierra Leone, Ghana and other neighboring countries but also remorselessly destroyed an Islamic architecture that represented the blend between traditional Liberian, West African and Arab architectural design and influences.

In recent years Diaspora Liberians abroad who practice Islam and Liberians in Liberia have participated in joint projects to rebuild and finance the reconstruction of mosques in many towns in the countryside.

2000s[edit]

Countries such as Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, etc. have created Diplomatic relations with Liberia. Islamic organizations provide help to Liberian Muslims wanting to go on Hajj to Mecca. Laurence K. Bropleh, Liberia's Information Minister and a reverend, attended as a guest speaker.

Minister Bropleh called on the nation's legislature to designate non-Christian holidays as national holidays, specifically Hajj. He also suggested establishing a religious advisory board, representing all of the major religions practiced in Liberia, to advise the President. Methodist leaders condemned Bropleh's comments and accused him of fueling inter-religious tension.[5]

Islam in Liberia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I don't see any sword in spread of Islam in Liberia.

Do you see any? Please

Regards

 

[Looncall]

Was Islam spread by the sword?

No.

For example:

Spread of Islam in Liberia:

Charles Taylor[edit]

President Charles Taylor promulgated Islam for political reasons. Taylor, an ally of Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi, trained in Libya before returning to Liberia. Taylor's government sent 220 Muslims to Mecca to do Hajj in 2001 and gave the Liberia Muslim's council a prominent building in Monrovia and the designation of two hours of national broadcasting weekly for Islam-related programming.

Destruction of Mosques[edit]

A consequence of the civil war in Liberia was destruction of religious buildings, schools and places of worship across the country. In both the city and towns in urban and rural areas, government and opposition rebel forces destroyed numerous mosques belonging to Liberian Muslims from what government considered enemy ethnic groups.

Several massacres were also committed near mosques and schools. One of the most well known barbaric and gruesome was the Bakerdu Massacre in the mainly Mandingo/Muslim Quardu Gboni District Lofa County on July 12, 1990. Over 400 civilians were killed and later burned alive by Charles Taylor's National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL).

Destroyed buildings still stand on uneven foundations, raddled with bullet holes, demolished walls or simply blasted to skeletal buildings. Such destruction not only led to many faithful followers fleeing their hometowns, cities and villages for refugee camps in Sierra Leone, Ghana and other neighboring countries but also remorselessly destroyed an Islamic architecture that represented the blend between traditional Liberian, West African and Arab architectural design and influences.

In recent years Diaspora Liberians abroad who practice Islam and Liberians in Liberia have participated in joint projects to rebuild and finance the reconstruction of mosques in many towns in the countryside.

2000s[edit]

Countries such as Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, etc. have created Diplomatic relations with Liberia. Islamic organizations provide help to Liberian Muslims wanting to go on Hajj to Mecca. Laurence K. Bropleh, Liberia's Information Minister and a reverend, attended as a guest speaker.

Minister Bropleh called on the nation's legislature to designate non-Christian holidays as national holidays, specifically Hajj. He also suggested establishing a religious advisory board, representing all of the major religions practiced in Liberia, to advise the President. Methodist leaders condemned Bropleh's comments and accused him of fueling inter-religious tension.[5]

Islam in Liberia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I don't see any sword in spread of Islam in Liberia.

Do you see any? Please

Regards

The fact that islam spread peacefully in some cases does not refute that it was spread by conquest in others.

 

[YmirGF]

The fact that islam spread peacefully in some cases does not refute that it was spread by conquest in others.

The desperation to white-wash the spread of Islam is very telling... in the face of history and reality. I particularly liked the spin on the spread of Islam to India. One gets the distinct impression that there was no genocidal rampage that took the lives of upwards of 60,000,000 Indians. No doubt that was due to the actions of misunderstanders of Islam...

 

[1robin]

Not all doctrine is monolithic. Sure many schools of theology share common core values be it Jesus, Muhammad, a text, collection of text, etc. However it is the doctrine of the current system at the time which should be addressed for each case. Catholic doctrine is not Protestant doctrine. So to apply Catholic doctrine to all of Christianity is a mistake. Likewise Ash'ari doctrine is not Sufism so should not be applied to a period in which is was not the dominate in an area.

Of course the doctrines between faiths are not identical. I though that went without saying. However with Christianity (even having a huge split between Catholicism and Protestantism) 90% of us agree with each other on 90% of the doctrinal issues. I was not replying to anything specific you said but in general. There is far more differences in the was a faith is acted upon (religion) that the doctrines it is founded upon (theology) but of course there are exceptions. My point was not to confuse what men do with what God said.

I have been looking into history of different areas in which both Christian and Muslim influence were side by side. Such is the case of Spain. European history during this period are very Christian and Eurocentric. Likewise the same is true for history from Muslim sources. Reading both sides I feel one could find a middle-ground between history and the interpretation of history from various points of view. Only in modern times are historian reevaluating sources for bias or blunt propaganda in the support of a cause.

You would be hard pressed to reconcile the most central of claims for example: Jesus died on the cross for the sins of mankind and Jesus did not die on the cross it only appeared he had. You can't reconcile mutually exclusive claims to he truth. Despite some who wishfully think differently the Bible and Quran are mutually exclusive texts. Both can be wrong but no more than one right in it's core doctrines. That does not keep me from peacefully living with Muslims but it does make our doctrines incompatible.

For example why did Timur enslave so many people even other Muslims. To lay blame at Islam's feet as a whole is a mistake. One should look at what was the dominate form of Islam he was influenced by how did this form come to dominance, what external/internal influenced this version. After all Timur is a hero and villain depending on who you ask or what sources you read.

As I have said it is not primarily men I debate or defend. It is the text and the ultimate source of the work ie...God. May Muslims are more moral than Christians, some Atheists are more moral than some of each, and vice versa. I am not comparing men against each but the ides against each which they act on. The over 100 open ended verses in the Quran justifying violence and the lack of a single verse in the OT concerning open ended violence, and no verse justifying violence of any kind in the NT is what I am pointing out, and the acts of men using these verses as motivation is just an example not the premise. Islam is bad and occasionally does good, Christianity is good but occasionally does bad.

 

[1robin]

If Indians were forced to Islam and were genocide then how come that Hindus does exist and the population of India is 1.3 billion whereas the red Indian disappeared from north America and your reason that they died because of diseases is a silly one.

You need to get away from American natives as you have not studied them apparently. As I told you, and your terrible source even explained it was disease that killed 90% of American Indians, of the 10% left other Indians killed most of them once the Europeans upset the balance of power. Cortez had less than a thousand Spanish with him but he had tens of thousand of natives who had been oppressed by the Aztecs and who wanted revenge. The numbers that Europeans directly killed in warfare is almost negligible even though it took place in a time where weapons were far more advanced than in Islam's India massacre. American Indians almost all died out because of disease but they still exist in huge numbers, and I am one. Unlike Islam in India the US granted them land, billions of dollars, and even land not in US Jurisdictions. Islam just started killing them again the first chance they got after Gandhi pushed the English out of India.

So:
1. There are plenty of American Indians left.
2. The reasons the population dropped so suddenly was disease and being killed by other Indians not whites (though that occur).
3. There never were anything like the numbers of American natives as Indian Indians to begin with plus the devastation they suffered is far more recent and they have not has as much time to recover.

“Our nation was born in genocide when it embraced the doctrine that the original American, the Indian, was an inferior race. Even before there were large numbers of Negroes on our shore, the scar of racial hatred had already disfigured colonial society. From the sixteenth century forward, blood flowed in battles over racial supremacy. We are perhaps the only nation which tried as a matter of national policy to wipe out its indigenous population. Moreover, we elevated that tragic experience into a noble crusade. Indeed, even today we have not permitted ourselves to reject or feel remorse for this shameful episode. Our literature, our films, our drama, our folklore all exalt it. Our children are still taught to respect the violence which reduced a red-skinned people of an earlier culture into a few fragmented groups herded into impoverished reservations.”

Martin Luther King was not a historian of any kind. However when he laid down his promissory note of freedom it was written by Thomas Jefferson. The events he does not know anything about took place hundreds of years before the US existed and were not done by any one nation of faith but were simply the effect of one group running up against another and radically different group. Mostly it was disease but even the military actions can't be pinned on one group. The Spanish did some, The English did some, The Dutch did some, refuges from Ireland did some, other Indians did more than any one group I mentioned, plus dozens of other of disconnected groups. A genocide is one group wiping out another for cultural or racial reasons. Here you have a few dozen groups fighting against a few hundred groups on the other side that were fighting each other. There is no comparison, not on any level, in any way, at any time. I will give you one example: The Sioux are the typical plains Indian. They had not been here for hundreds of years like ignorant people without historical backgrounds think. They came out of Canada about hundreds years before whites landed in Virginia. They killed at least 6 peaceful agriculturally based tribes of their own Indian brothers and took their. There were no treaties, no asking permission, they simply butchered them and took the land, they offered nothing for it, issued no apologies, and gave no reparations. When Gold was discovered in the land they had killed their neighbors to take we offered them millions just for rights to build a road. They said no and started attacking settlers. The army whipped them and too the land except for giving each several acres to farm on. They later gave them hundreds of millions for the land they had not acquired peacefully in the first place. They refused to farm so we spent millions feeding them, gave them money for or guilt schools and hospitals, etc..... That exact pattern was repeated all over the US. Both sides were at times wrong but Europeans had far fewer of them. However you could add up all the wrongs done by either side in Canada, the US, and South America multiply them all by 10 and they would not equal just what Islam did in Indian.

― Martin Luther King Jr.
Reference : Quote by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.:

Martin Luther Kind was a good man and smart but he was a terrible historian.

And Hindus is still a major religion in India and their population is similar to China and they were genocide by Muslims.:sarcastic

Nothing about there still being Hindus around is evidence that the well known genocide of hundreds of millions did not take place. What are you talking about? There was over a billion Hindus to begin with, Even if you killed off 300 million of them a few hundred years ago they would have easily grown past a billion again.

What evidences you have which prove that the stories were correct and not falsified, even though it says Mohammed said so and so or his friend said so and so, how can you know it is a real story, why not accepting the stories which say Mohammed is prophet of God, why you accept one story and reject the other.

On the exacts same basis you have any confidence in any thing about him. I used the same sources in most cases that are used to validate things about him. Islam accepts about 80% of the sources I used.

The fact remains that Islam was in the golden age at the time Europe were in the Dark ages

If I am jogging along at no special pace in particular and the people around me started walking does that mean I have done anything special? Especially when those same people start sprinting leaving me in the dust and are soon out of site and I never catch up with them to this day.

That is due to your ignorance about Islam and the quran.

No, it is due to my refusal to accept unscholarly made up excuses for why these verse mean the exact opposite of they say. I read the context around the verses, the historical context, the commentaries, etc..... not u-tube.

[youtube]gFXFatsykF8[/youtube]
atheist of Jewish descent to defend the Qur'an Lesley Hazleton.flv - YouTube

For the 1000th time I can't watch utube and it is not a scholarly source anyway.

 

[paarsurrey]

@Looncall
@YmirGF


Please read my following post:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3881113-post512.html

Regards

 

[YmirGF]

@Looncall
@YmirGF


Please read my following post:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3881113-post512.html

Regards

That was the very post I was referring to, paarsurrey. Your desperation is noted.

 

[Nakosis]

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

I'd suspect the only way to deter a belief being "spread by the sword" is to support a secular government.

Religion is spread by individuals. Individuals come into power believe they can decide what is right for the rest of us. It is easy to promote an us vs them mentality in the masses. Sometimes evil can be overlooked as long as you're promoting the right religion?

It's ok to slaughter the unbelievers because I'm doing God's work? What part of "slaughter" is not evil? Do people need the word of some Prophet to tell them that?

 

[Shad]

Of course the doctrines between faiths are not identical. I though that went without saying. However with Christianity (even having a huge split between Catholicism and Protestantism) 90% of us agree with each other on 90% of the doctrinal issues. I was not replying to anything specific you said but in general. There is far more differences in the was a faith is acted upon (religion) that the doctrines it is founded upon (theology) but of course there are exceptions. My point was not to confuse what men do with what God said.

Yes that is true but there are major difference especially when it comes to the Church itself. However my point is one should not just label the acts of a Protestant as accepted by any/all Christians. I am just adding another divide. God -> Text -> Interpretation -> Doctrine -> Men. The same is true for Islam. However there is little in the NT which supports outright violence towards others let alone oppression.

You would be hard pressed to reconcile the most central of claims for example: Jesus died on the cross for the sins of mankind and Jesus did not die on the cross it only appeared he had. You can't reconcile mutually exclusive claims to he truth. Despite some who wishfully think differently the Bible and Quran are mutually exclusive texts. Both can be wrong but no more than one right in it's core doctrines. That does not keep me from peacefully living with Muslims but it does make our doctrines incompatible.

I was not attempting to reconciles Islam and Christianity. Despite sharing some common values the ideological divides are too great. Political Christianity is in revelations and the OT(outdated) while Islam provides a political system from the start.

As I have said it is not primarily men I debate or defend. It is the text and the ultimate source of the work ie...God. May Muslims are more moral than Christians, some Atheists are more moral than some of each, and vice versa. I am not comparing men against each but the ides against each which they act on. The over 100 open ended verses in the Quran justifying violence and the lack of a single verse in the OT concerning open ended violence, and no verse justifying violence of any kind in the NT is what I am pointing out, and the acts of men using these verses as motivation is just an example not the premise. Islam is bad and occasionally does good, Christianity is good but occasionally does bad.

Both religions and the acts of individual/groups should be examined within the proper context. Hence why one should look at what the dominate interpretation is for each case, the system behind the interpretation and the "why" behind each. You have to keep in mind people will acceptt or reject different interpretation based on their own circumstances and will use the text to justify their acts. If you only impose your own interpretation on event this is just confirmation bias not a proper evaluation. After all there are many Christians which use the OT to justify their views. Likewise there are Muslims which use verses which contain violence to justify their own violent acts. The opposite is true for those which promote peaceful interaction of both religions.

There are a number of versse in the OT which at face value which support violence against out-group(s). As I said without looking at the context of such verses one could easily say use this basis to propagate any view they wish. I believe this has happened repeatedly for both sides of the discussion.

 

[1robin]

Yes that is true but there are major difference especially when it comes to the Church itself. However my point is one should not just label the acts of a Protestant as accepted by any/all Christians. I am just adding another divide. God -> Text -> Interpretation -> Doctrine -> Men. The same is true for Islam. However there is little in the NT which supports outright violence towards others let alone oppression.

That's what we need, more division. Just kidding. I do not recall mentioning all protestant beliefs are accepted by all Christians. I think I said 90% of us believe 90% of the same thing. Given the massive amount of extremely divisive material in the bible it is a wonder that many agree. However certain core tenants are true of mainstream Christianity and some are not. Beyond that I fear to tread and do not recall having done so. Not one verse in the NT in any interpretation I have ever seen authorizes violence or oppressions of anyone for any reason. It just is not there in any form. However the Quran has hundreds of verses that are open ended calls to generalized violence. Interpretation might soften them or harden them but unlike the bible they are there in black and white, and what's more they abrogate earlier peaceful which were more convenient when Muhammad was outnumbered. You can rationalize the Quran if desperate but the NT does not have anything in need of doing so to begin with.

I was not attempting to reconciles Islam and Christianity. Despite sharing some common values the ideological divides are too great. Political Christianity is in revelations and the OT(outdated) while Islam provides a political system from the start.

Islam is definitely an earthy system. The OT involves an earthly system but it relational structure is not of this earth. Before it can commence every aspect of this pathetic world is eradicated to make all things new.

Both religions and the acts of individual/groups should be examined within the proper context. Hence why one should look at what the dominate interpretation is for each case, the system behind the interpretation and the "why" behind each. You have to keep in mind people will acceptt or reject different interpretation based on their own circumstances and will use the text to justify their acts. If you only impose your own interpretation on event this is just confirmation bias not a proper evaluation. After all there are many Christians which use the OT to justify their views. Likewise there are Muslims which use verses which contain violence to justify their own violent acts. The opposite is true for those which promote peaceful interaction of both religions.

That was my point and so far I have not seen anything that indicates I failed to do so.

There are a number of versse in the OT which at face value which support violence against out-group(s). As I said without looking at the context of such verses one could easily say use this basis to propagate any view they wish. I believe this has happened repeatedly for both sides of the discussion.

I agree there are many verses in the OT that authorize violence against groups, for a time, and specific purpose and which are easily justifiable given God's purpose. I find the Quran's open ended, generalized, petty, and tuned to man's trivial desires. And available for use in almost any violent act at any time. If I wanted a Holy War I could find more justification in the Quran than any holy book I am aware of. We may have some details to hash out but in general I have no problem with your conclusions.

 

[Shad]

That's what we need, more division. Just kidding. I do not recall mentioning all protestant beliefs are accepted by all Christians. I think I said 90% of us believe 90% of the same thing. Given the massive amount of extremely divisive material in the bible it is a wonder that many agree. However certain core tenants are true of mainstream Christianity and some are not. Beyond that I fear to tread and do not recall having done so. Not one verse in the NT in any interpretation I have ever seen authorizes violence or oppressions of anyone for any reason. It just is not there in any form. However the Quran has hundreds of verses that are open ended calls to generalized violence. Interpretation might soften them or harden them but unlike the bible they are there in black and white, and what's more they abrogate earlier peaceful which were more convenient when Muhammad was outnumbered. You can rationalize the Quran if desperate but the NT does not have anything in need of doing so to begin with.





Islam is definitely an earthy system. The OT involves an earthly system but it relational structure is not of this earth. Before it can commence every aspect of this pathetic world is eradicated to make all things new.



That was my point and so far I have not seen anything that indicates I failed to do so.

I agree there are many verses in the OT that authorize violence against groups, for a time, and specific purpose and which are easily justifiable given God's purpose. I find the Quran's open ended, generalized, petty, and tuned to man's trivial desires. And available for use in almost any violent act at any time. If I wanted a Holy War I could find more justification in the Quran than any holy book I am aware of. We may have some details to hash out but in general I have no problem with your conclusions.

I wasn't suggesting you generalize Christianity. It was merely an example in which others do label acts of an individual group and generalize it for the whole religion. It was an example you could relate to. Likewise one should not take the acts of individual that is a Muslim and apply the basis of such acts on Islam as a whole.

Take for example Matthew 10:34. A person can take it as face value as promoting war and violence. Without looking at the context of the verse such conclusion can be used to generalize and justify one's negative views of Christianity. I am saying you are doing this with Islam and various Muslim posts have done the same with Christianity. Both sides refuse to look at the context involved, hold to their own views and just throw strawman argument back and forth. Both side are oblivious this fact.

 

[Moishe3rd]

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

No.
Islam was not "spread by the sword."
Unlike today's modern mufsidun scumbag Islamists, there was no "convert or die" back in the good old days.
However, today's Islamic hirabah of head chopping and suicide blowing and Israel hating Muslim ********** is a new invented philosophy that has nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with making stupid inadequate people feel important and smart.

Islam was the same as any other religion - you conquered and people came over to the side of the ruling party for all the good bennies.

Today - not so much.
The effing Islamist haters are brain dead scum who found Naziism and Stalinism attractive enough to imitate its bloodthirsty craziness.

And, by the way, if some Muslim Arab movement doesn't take care of this garbage, Islam is going to be pretty much wiped off the face of the Earth.
The rest of the world is going to be a bit less discriminating once the Stupid Muslims nuke each other or decide to Sarin Gas the Kurds....

 

[outhouse]

The effing Islamist haters are brain dead scum who found Naziism and Stalinism attractive enough to imitate its bloodthirsty craziness.

Way to extreme.

It is not either or.



I hate many aspects of the religion, and many people that follow it. But I also see the positive side and the good people through the mire.

It sucks there is a mire, but the fundamentalism of this religion is easily perverted by their own.

And, by the way, if some Muslim Arab movement doesn't take care of this garbage, Islam is going to be pretty much wiped off the face of the Earth.

Again, to extreme. Neither helps nor educates.

 

[Moishe3rd]

Way to extreme.

It is not either or.



I hate many aspects of the religion, and many people that follow it. But I also see the positive side and the good people through the mire.

It sucks there is a mire, but the fundamentalism of this religion is easily perverted by their own.









Again, to extreme. Neither helps nor educates.

I do believe you are mistaking my comments regarding Islamists - ISIS; ISI; Taliban; al Quada; Vilayat al Fiqh; Hamas; Hezbollah; Muslim Brotherhood; and thousands of other bloodthirsty mufsidun Islamists - to include "all Muslims."
Not what I wrote.
Not what I meant.

And, yes, unless a MUSLIM/ ARAB force decides to take up arms against the crazies in the Name of Freedom and the Just Laws of G-d (Allah), Islam will be severely curtailed on this planet.
"mene mene tekel upharsin"

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

The problem in Islam
I allowed my friend Jewish allowed me
I thought I carry and carry personal experiences
That's when I say Read the history of Islam -
I find where blood from the beginning of its inception as an idea
And because the thought can not be tested only through practice
Notes -
Starting Islam wars between Arabs And also ChristiansIn spite of 1,400 years on this date, the practices of Islam has not changed
They dream of controlling the world
The Alihodwi Arabian Peninsula fuel this religionYesterday was the sword
But today Elashenkov and dynamics
They want to wipe Israel out of existenceOne day Muhammad follow the trend by Jewish Alveasali
But after a period
Other
He feud Jews and Christians
So Islamic thought can not be him n be thought peacefullyThat is why the spread of Islam by the sword the factBut can not say that all countries converted to Islam by the sword Yes, there are other reasons
Trade
Not opposed to the teachings of Islam in matters of marriage and the desire of human sexual desires
Because the permissibility large and you know two and three and four and also the neighboring queens right


And also the nature of the communities in which the spread of Islam without SaifThe communities of the Middle East
And I know you hate the Assyrians, Chaldeans and Syriacs
These nationalities did not accept Islam because she found the thought behindIslam and work to gradually Alqdhaealiha
Islam and also never thought that one day Israel will be a reality on the groundThere is a state in the Koran says that Israel will not be a presence, but when it was Anchaedolh Israel was so contrary to Aleghan That Aithml recognized the existence of this stateTo be my guide book I invite you to view the Jews between the Koran and the Sunna --almalv Sayed TantawiWith all the sorrow in my version left after immigrated because of Islamic terrorism
But you can get this version of the net that I wanted itSo there is a dilemma and the problem is Islam spread by the sword
* Will not know peace ever and ever

Because the teachings of Islam and jihad is the strength and fighting and hatred
Accept greetings

 

[YmirGF]

I do believe you are mistaking my comments regarding Islamists - ISIS; ISI; Taliban; al Quada; Vilayat al Fiqh; Hamas; Hezbollah; Muslim Brotherhood; and thousands of other bloodthirsty mufsidun Islamists - to include "all Muslims."
Not what I wrote.
Not what I meant.

And, yes, unless a MUSLIM/ ARAB force decides to take up arms against the crazies in the Name of Freedom and the Just Laws of G-d (Allah), Islam will be severely curtailed on this planet.
"mene mene tekel upharsin"

Oddly, you sound almost as intolerant as the people you supposedly are vilifying.
A PEW study from awhile back indicated that there is very little actual difference between the beliefs of the more "hard line" Muslims and the so-called moderate Muslims. The difference was almost entirely around methodology. Both groups wanted the same thing, the same world, the same dehumanization of humanity. It was only in how they sought to bring about change that was different.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Can not be compared to the spread of Christianity with Islam
Christianity spread through the teachings of the high-end labyrinthine Viasalha stems from the Torah
Because the Jewish religion did not put preaching God of tasks
Jehovah God, but considered in the special children of Israel
But Christianity is stemming from the children of Israel, but also missionary religionAs for Islam, he wants to eliminate those names
It gives recipes to differ from Jehovah God in the Bible and Christianity also
Koran says there is no god but which secured him the children of Israel
The Koran says Christ is not his August
It is the word of God
As well as the Koran commands to fight the Jews and also ChristiansAnd in front of these contradictions in this thought
Van correct human thought means telling the truth
Can not deny that Islam was spread by the sword
Search and also the reasons for its spread in some areas without Saif
The researcher in Islam Egged thought it classy as they are Jewish or Christian
Jewish does not say that he is fighting for God
God is the one who protects the Jewish history stages
And also the same God who is publishing his speech and attributes by ChristGod in Islam is weak
But this man defends God through jihad
And blood
While in the Jewish God is the one who protects his children and Bnah
In Christianity became a holistic view of each human to human it is an invitation to say we are children of God
* While Islam says that God Sly - God in Islam scary

Hyman harmful Abuse
Avenger to last names and attributes
That's what I try to type it
For I am not averse to Islam
Carry and also respect for the children of Israel
And aspire one day to know that humanity
The essence of God is love
Jehovah is love
And the love of Christ
It is incompatible with the love of God to Aantmi
munir sawresho

 

[paarsurrey]

No.
Islam was not "spread by the sword."
Unlike today's modern mufsidun scumbag Islamists, there was no "convert or die" back in the good old days.
However, today's Islamic hirabah of head chopping and suicide blowing and Israel hating Muslim ********** is a new invented philosophy that has nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with making stupid inadequate people feel important and smart.

Islam was the same as any other religion - you conquered and people came over to the side of the ruling party for all the good bennies.

Today - not so much.
The effing Islamist haters are brain dead scum who found Naziism and Stalinism attractive enough to imitate its bloodthirsty craziness.

And, by the way, if some Muslim Arab movement doesn't take care of this garbage, Islam is going to be pretty much wiped off the face of the Earth.
The rest of the world is going to be a bit less discriminating once the Stupid Muslims nuke each other or decide to Sarin Gas the Kurds....

Islam was not "spread by the sword."
Unlike today's modern mufsidun scumbag Islamists, there was no "convert or die" back in the good old days.

I agree with you.

Regards