Was Islam spread by the sword?

[paarsurrey]

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

The conquests were political; not for conversion.
All wars are not done for religious conversions.; why mix them up?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Was Islam spread by the sword?

No.

For example:

Spread of Islam in Madagascar:

Islam has been well established in what is now known as Madagascar for centuries and today Muslims represent 7% of the population.[1] Almost all Muslims in Madagascar practice Sunni Islam of Shafi school of jurisprudence.

History

Settlement of Arabs[edit]

Following the traditions of certain Malagasy peoples, the first Arabs to settle Madagascar were refugees from the civil wars that followed the death of Muhammad in 632. Beginning in the 10th or 11th century, Arabic and Zanzibari ivory merchantsworking their way down the east coast of Africa in their dhows and established settlements on the west coast of Madagascar.

The most noteworthy of these were the Zafiraminia, traditional ancestors of the Antemoro, Antanosy and other east coast ethnicities. The last wave of Arab immigrants would be the Antalaotra who immigrated from eastern African colonies. They settled the north-west of the island (Majunga area) and were the first to actually bring Islam to the island.

Arab immigrants were few in total number compared to the Indonesians and Bantus, but they left a lasting impression. The Malagasy names for seasons, months, days, and coins are Arabic in origin, as is the practice of circumcision, the communal grain pool, and different forms of salutation. The Arab magicians, known as the ombiasy, established themselves in the courts of many Malagasy tribal kingdoms.

Arab immigrants brought their patriarchal system of family and clan of non Islamic civilization rule to Madagascar, which differed from the Polynesian matriarchal system whereby rights of privilege and property are conferred equally on men and women.

Sorabe is an alphabet based on Arabic used to transcribe the Malagasy language and the Antemoro dialect in particular. The Arabs were also the first to correctly identify the origin of most Malagasy by suggesting that the island was colonized by the Indonesians.[2]

Islam in Madagascar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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

Do you see any? Please

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

The conquests were political; not for conversion.
All wars are not done for religious conversions.; why mix them up?

Regards

One reason is because Islamic societies often have political goals.

 

[FearGod]

If we admitted for the sake of argument that force had played a part in spreading of Islam, then what makes it spreading nowadays even though that Islamic countries are lagging behind.

 

[Sees]

If we admitted for the sake of argument that force had played a part in spreading of Islam, then what makes it spreading nowadays even though that Islamic countries are lagging behind.

I would say it is primarily plenty of new babies combined with immigration.....and of course some fresh blood/converts now and then.

Add that it is not as acceptable to quit the religion in comparison to most - you would expect numbers to keep rising exactly as they have/are.

 

[1robin]

If we admitted for the sake of argument that force had played a part in spreading of Islam, then what makes it spreading nowadays even though that Islamic countries are lagging behind.

Force, no matter how low the middle east sinks there is always someone lower they can muscle, like Africa, SE Asia, or each other. You do not have to be strong to influence others if you have no rules about honorable warfare. You only have to terrorize them. I don't think Islam is gaining too many converts by terrorism but they still consider violence as the first tool in the box whenever they wish to have an impact. Islam attacking with five nations which each outnumbered Israel in 1948 lost to a country with no standing army. It is apparent since then that loosing battles does not change their mind and being weak only makes them uses terror instead of living peacefully. I think Islam would dwindle away if they did not make it illegal to convert in many nations and consider new borns who never chose anything Muslims and prevent them from changing their mind, and having far more babies despite being far less capable of taking care of them in the middle east. On a whole Islam survives by state sanctioned force even of it's own people. If your product is any good you do not have to making switching punishable by death.

 

[gnostic]

If we admitted for the sake of argument that force had played a part in spreading of Islam, then what makes it spreading nowadays even though that Islamic countries are lagging behind.

I don't doubt that there are many people have converted peacefully and voluntarily or of their own free will, both in the past and present.

But Islam have in the past (and even in the present) also spread through countries through conquests too. You are denying your own history, that the Islamic empires have invaded lands, in the east and west. Muslims here have being in self-denials that conquered these kingdoms to spread Islam.

If Islam and Muslims were peaceful there would be no need to attack other kingdoms, then why attack them in the first place? After Muhammad's death, why did they attack Syria and Persia?

Why did they go through Africa, and then attack Spanish peninsula?

Why go east, go through Central Asia, and attack the Hindu kingdoms in the Indian subcontinent?

None of these invasions can be called self-defense?

Do you deny that Muslims have invaded those countries at that time?

You (meaning Muslim armies, not "you" personally) waltz right in another country or kingdom thinking you own the lands.

And even when Muslims do convert peacefully, generations later, they cause civil unrest, demanding to form separate state from the rest of the country, like in the Philippines. The militant Filipino Muslims have resorted guerrilla warfare and acting like terrorists, abducting people, making all sorts of demands.

It also happened in Thailand, using the same tactics as in the Philippines.

And that not the only problems. In some countries, it is law to arrest people who has left Islam, and in those countries it is acceptable to arrest, convict, and punish them in one of the followings: prison sentence, public flogging or execution. This is using intimidation to keeping them in Islam or force them to convert back to Islam.

It all well when Muslim say there are no compulsion to joining Islam, within the Qur'anic verse(s), but what the use of it, that some Muslims overlook them. Sometimes, they force you to convert, and even worse when they tried to force you to stay.

 

[paarsurrey]

One reason is because Islamic societies often have political goals.

I think every society has political goals also; no exception of Muslims.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

If we admitted for the sake of argument that force had played a part in spreading of Islam, then what makes it spreading nowadays even though that Islamic countries are lagging behind.

It is a good question.

Thanks and regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I don't doubt that there are many people have converted peacefully and voluntarily or of their own free will, both in the past and present.

But Islam have in the past (and even in the present) also spread through countries through conquests too. You are denying your own history, that the Islamic empires have invaded lands, in the east and west. Muslims here have being in self-denials that conquered these kingdoms to spread Islam.

If Islam and Muslims were peaceful there would be no need to attack other kingdoms, then why attack them in the first place? After Muhammad's death, why did they attack Syria and Persia?

Why did they go through Africa, and then attack Spanish peninsula?

Why go east, go through Central Asia, and attack the Hindu kingdoms in the Indian subcontinent?

None of these invasions can be called self-defense?

Do you deny that Muslims have invaded those countries at that time?

You (meaning Muslim armies, not "you" personally) waltz right in another country or kingdom thinking you own the lands.

And even when Muslims do convert peacefully, generations later, they cause civil unrest, demanding to form separate state from the rest of the country, like in the Philippines. The militant Filipino Muslims have resorted guerrilla warfare and acting like terrorists, abducting people, making all sorts of demands.

It also happened in Thailand, using the same tactics as in the Philippines.

And that not the only problems. In some countries, it is law to arrest people who has left Islam, and in those countries it is acceptable to arrest, convict, and punish them in one of the followings: prison sentence, public flogging or execution. This is using intimidation to keeping them in Islam or force them to convert back to Islam.

It all well when Muslim say there are no compulsion to joining Islam, within the Qur'anic verse(s), but what the use of it, that some Muslims overlook them. Sometimes, they force you to convert, and even worse when they tried to force you to stay.

I don't doubt that there are many people have converted peacefully and voluntarily or of their own free will, both in the past and present.

Thanks for the acknowledgement.

Regards

 

[outhouse]

I think every society has political goals also; no exception of Muslims.

Regards

In muslim communities, religion plays a bigger part in politics, then free countries that separate religion and state.

Try it sometime.

 

[paarsurrey]

I don't doubt that there are many people have converted peacefully and voluntarily or of their own free will, both in the past and present.

But Islam have in the past (and even in the present) also spread through countries through conquests too. You are denying your own history, that the Islamic empires have invaded lands, in the east and west. Muslims here have being in self-denials that conquered these kingdoms to spread Islam.

If Islam and Muslims were peaceful there would be no need to attack other kingdoms, then why attack them in the first place? After Muhammad's death, why did they attack Syria and Persia?

Why did they go through Africa, and then attack Spanish peninsula?

Why go east, go through Central Asia, and attack the Hindu kingdoms in the Indian subcontinent?

None of these invasions can be called self-defense?

Do you deny that Muslims have invaded those countries at that time?

You (meaning Muslim armies, not "you" personally) waltz right in another country or kingdom thinking you own the lands.

And even when Muslims do convert peacefully, generations later, they cause civil unrest, demanding to form separate state from the rest of the country, like in the Philippines. The militant Filipino Muslims have resorted guerrilla warfare and acting like terrorists, abducting people, making all sorts of demands.

It also happened in Thailand, using the same tactics as in the Philippines.

And that not the only problems. In some countries, it is law to arrest people who has left Islam, and in those countries it is acceptable to arrest, convict, and punish them in one of the followings: prison sentence, public flogging or execution. This is using intimidation to keeping them in Islam or force them to convert back to Islam.

It all well when Muslim say there are no compulsion to joining Islam, within the Qur'anic verse(s), but what the use of it, that some Muslims overlook them. Sometimes, they force you to convert, and even worse when they tried to force you to stay.

that the Islamic empires have invaded lands, in the east and west.

The empire did not do it for religious conversions; there is no such teaching/commandment in Quran/Islam/Muhammad supporting that; they did it for the political reasons.

Regards

 

[1robin]

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.

I can quote accepted Islam sources (and have countless times) as to what their open ended verses mean. I can get into the context (I did so with a few I posted recently, some can't possibly be either defensive or temporary). I am sure some adjustments can be justified for some Surah's but in general their violent verse are in a whole other category and type as even the OT verses.


As far as Mathew goes , I suppose you could interpret it that way if you mangle every rule ever developed concerning proper hermeneutics and exegesis and every other verse that ties into it. For example the one and only time an actual sword was used in Christ's presence he strongly rebuked it and healed the man, you won't find Muhammad doing that, you will find him chopping heads off until he no longer can pick up a sword. A [person with an agenda can define stop as go (as they do in countless rape cases) but this is hardly suggestive that stop actually means go. Islamic verses on violence are not even in the same realm, you do not have two equals here. If you want some context then take the fact that all verses about a sword and Christ are translated every single time as either symbolic of the word or a divide and are not even coherent if used literally versus:

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.


Context is what proves my claims, not what obscures them.

 

[paarsurrey]

In muslim communities, religion plays a bigger part in politics, then free countries that separate religion and state.

Try it sometime.

Quran is not against separation of religion and state; rather supports it so that every citizen gets equal/equitable rights of justice.

Regards

 

[Shad]

I can quote accepted Islam sources (and have countless times) as to what their open ended verses mean. I can get into the context (I did so with a few I posted recently, some can't possibly be either defensive or temporary). I am sure some adjustments can be justified for some Surah's but in general their violent verse are in a whole other category and type as even the OT verses.


As far as Mathew goes , I suppose you could interpret it that way if you mangle every rule ever developed concerning proper hermeneutics and exegesis and every other verse that ties into it. For example the one and only time an actual sword was used in Christ's presence he strongly rebuked it and healed the man, you won't find Muhammad doing that, you will find him chopping heads off until he no longer can pick up a sword. A [person with an agenda can define stop as go (as they do in countless rape cases) but this is hardly suggestive that stop actually means go. Islamic verses on violence are not even in the same realm, you do not have two equals here. If you want some context then take the fact that all verses about a sword and Christ are translated every single time as either symbolic of the word or a divide and are not even coherent if used literally versus:

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.


Context is what proves my claims, not what obscures them.

So if I find a source which supports a violent or radical interpretation that is good enough? How about Miles Christianus?

You also prove my point, you have done more work in understanding Christianity, your religion, than Islam, which you reject.

 

[paarsurrey]

Was Islam spread by the sword?

No.

For example:

Spread of Islam in Malawi:

Islam is the second largest religion in Malawi after Christianity; nearly all of Malawi's Muslims adhere to Sunni Islam.[1] Islam arrived to Malawi with the Arab and Swahili traders who traded in ivory, gold and later on slaves beginning from 16th Century to the 19th Century.

According to UNESCO, the first mosque was built by Swahili-Arabs ivory traders.[2] According to the CIA Factbook, 12.8% of the country's population is Muslim.[3] Recently, Muslim groups have engaged in missionary work in Malawi. Much of this is performed by the African Muslim Agency, based in Kuwait. The Kuwait-sponsored AMA has translated the Qur'an into Chichewa(Cinyanja),[4] one of the official languages of Malawi, and has engaged in other missionary work in the country.

All of the major cities in the country have mosques, and there are several Islamic schools.[5]

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

Do you see any? Please

Regards

 

[outhouse]

Quran is not against separation of religion and state; rather supports it so that every citizen gets equal/equitable rights of justice.

Regards

Not true.

Straight up lie.

The justice sytsem un many muslim countries is factually barabaric, and biased to muslims.

You report your own kind as being persecuted for simple differenecs in the religion, and teh governement does nothing.

By your own words you lie.

 

[1robin]

So if I find a source which supports a violent or radical interpretation that is good enough? How about Miles Christianus?

You also prove my point, you have done more work in understanding Christianity, your religion, than Islam, which you reject.

Yes it is enough to begin a conversation.

To claim the site I got an interpretation from is biased is not evidence it is. I don't even care if it was biased (I have no idea I just picked the first site that came up) it's logic is obvious. You do not have to convince people in a defensive battle to fight. That statement was given to people who were not engaged in a war and did not want to be. You can even look at it's time period and see that Muhammad was only raiding caravans during the period. This was an Arab tradition that was simply imported into Islam and pretty much a way of life. Even caravan owners assumed the risk and expected raids. If you want to get deep I will go back to my original post about Muhammad's first battles in the words of his followers alone. No one has ever even attempted to explain them away, as they are accepted Islamic sources. So do not claim bias unless you can demonstrate bias in a specific case. Of course I have studied the theology I find acceptable more than ones that have obvious flaws and little merit, what wouldn't I? If you want to continue to suggest that bias is driving my claims then get specific and lets get into it. Generalized assertions (devoid of even an attempt at justification or evidence) are not going to prove anything.

 

[Looncall]

Was Islam spread by the sword?

No.

For example:

Spread of Islam in Malawi:

Islam is the second largest religion in Malawi after Christianity; nearly all of Malawi's Muslims adhere to Sunni Islam.[1] Islam arrived to Malawi with the Arab and Swahili traders who traded in ivory, gold and later on slaves beginning from 16th Century to the 19th Century.

According to UNESCO, the first mosque was built by Swahili-Arabs ivory traders.[2] According to the CIA Factbook, 12.8% of the country's population is Muslim.[3] Recently, Muslim groups have engaged in missionary work in Malawi. Much of this is performed by the African Muslim Agency, based in Kuwait. The Kuwait-sponsored AMA has translated the Qur'an into Chichewa(Cinyanja),[4] one of the official languages of Malawi, and has engaged in other missionary work in the country.

All of the major cities in the country have mosques, and there are several Islamic schools.[5]

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

Do you see any? Please

Regards

Did you not notice the word slaves?

Then again, I guess fish have no word for water.

(not mine, Terry Pratchet's, in Small Gods)

 

[1robin]

Quran is not against separation of religion and state; rather supports it so that every citizen gets equal/equitable rights of justice.

Regards

Unless you want out, unless you want equal rights for women, unless you want to chose for your self, unless your not a Muslim. The Quran specifically creates inequality. It says submit or either suffer subjugation and higher taxation or violence. That is true within it and for whatever it can control.