Was Islam spread by the sword?

[paarsurrey]

Do you not realize that just one counter-example, such as is easily found in the history of India, utterly refutes your position?

The best you can hope for is to claim that islam was not always spread by force. If you claim that it was never spread by force, you will be lieing through your teeth.

I think I should correct you on spread of Islam to India:

Spread of Islam in India​

Islam is the second-largest religion in India, making up 14.6% of the country's population with about 177 million adherents.[2][1][3]

Islam first came to India with Arab traders as early as 7th century AD to coastal Malabar.[4] Islam arrived in the 11th century to coastal Gujarat.[5]

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 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[11] 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.[12]This fact is corroborated, by J. Sturrock in his South Kanara and Madras Districts Manuals,[13] and also by Haridas Bhattacharya in Cultural Heritage of India Vol. IV.[14] 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.[15]

The first Indian mosque, Cheraman Juma Masjid, is thought to have been built in 629 AD by Malik Bin Deenar.[16][17][18][19]

In Malabar, the Mappilas may have been the first community to convert to Islam as they were more closely connected with the Arabs than others. 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.[15]

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.

Arab–Indian interactions

There is much historical evidence to show that Arabs and Muslims interacted with India and Indians from the very early days of Islam, if not before the arrival of Islam in Arabia. Arab traders transmitted the numeral system developed by Indians to the Middle East and Europe.

Many Sanskrit books were translated into Arabic as early as the eighth century. George Saliba writes in his book Islamic Science and the Making of the European Renaissance that "some major Sanskrit texts began to be translated during the reign of the second Abbasid caliph al-Mansur (754–775), if not before; some texts on logic even before that, and it has been generally accepted that the Persian and Sanskrit texts, few as they were, were indeed the first to be translated."[20]

Islam in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, please be corrected on spread of Islam to India.

Regards

 

[Looncall]

I think I should correct you on spread of Islam to India:

Spread of Islam in India​

Islam is the second-largest religion in India, making up 14.6% of the country's population with about 177 million adherents.[2][1][3]

Islam first came to India with Arab traders as early as 7th century AD to coastal Malabar.[4] Islam arrived in the 11th century to coastal Gujarat.[5]

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 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[11] 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.[12]This fact is corroborated, by J. Sturrock in his South Kanara and Madras Districts Manuals,[13] and also by Haridas Bhattacharya in Cultural Heritage of India Vol. IV.[14] 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.[15]

The first Indian mosque, Cheraman Juma Masjid, is thought to have been built in 629 AD by Malik Bin Deenar.[16][17][18][19]

In Malabar, the Mappilas may have been the first community to convert to Islam as they were more closely connected with the Arabs than others. 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.[15]

Islam in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, please be corrected on spread of Islam to India.

Regards

How interesting! You conveniently left out the next two paragraphs of that article. You know, the ones that describe invasions.

Did you expect to get away with such blatant dishonesty?

 

[Poeticus]

I think I should correct you on spread of Islam to India:

Spread of Islam in India​

Islam is the second-largest religion in India, making up 14.6% of the country's population with about 177 million adherents.[2][1][3]

Islam first came to India with Arab traders as early as 7th century AD to coastal Malabar.[4] Islam arrived in the 11th century to coastal Gujarat.[5]

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 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[11] 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.[12]This fact is corroborated, by J. Sturrock in his South Kanara and Madras Districts Manuals,[13] and also by Haridas Bhattacharya in Cultural Heritage of India Vol. IV.[14] 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.[15]

The first Indian mosque, Cheraman Juma Masjid, is thought to have been built in 629 AD by Malik Bin Deenar.[16][17][18][19]

In Malabar, the Mappilas may have been the first community to convert to Islam as they were more closely connected with the Arabs than others. 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.[15]

Islam in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, please be corrected on spread of Islam to India.

Regards

That's not even the full description on the "spread" of Islam into India. There were very small pockets of Muslim traders in the Western coastal areas of the Subcontinent around the early 700s, but the number of these traders didn't go into the heavy thousands. There weren't even enough of them to convey that Islam had even spread in India around that time.

Then came the Islamic Conquests of the Subcontinent---which are invasions and military conquests and raids that you are persistently leaving out. I have never seen such blatant form of intellectual dishonesty anywhere else in this thread as I have seen it originating from your posts---the refusal to admit or acknowledge that Islam spread into the Subcontinent primarily through violent means, through military subjugation by outside as well as by inside forces.

EDIT: In fact, it would be better, imo, to concentrate on the diverse Islamic beliefs that developed from such an exchange---an "Indian Islamic" response to such rigorism: Sufism; Ahmadi; Ismaili. All of which are looked down upon by mainstream Muslims, and even persecuted to some extent if not outright.

 

[1robin]

Please quote from Quran to prove your viewpoint.

If Islam is free to use non-Quran sources why in the world would I be bound to only using them. Islam has a mountain of works that are judged (by some of the most infantile scholarship imaginable) as authoritative. That is where all this extra material comes from. I have made this same point many times, no Muslim has ever suggested it was not from good sources. I have used in many threads. If you want I can copy and paste the full write up here with sourcing but I have no burden to only use the Quran because Muslims don't.

Jesus did not have even two hundred fifty truthful disciples; even the twelve did not listen to him. When Jesus time of trial came; Jesus instructed them to remain awake and pray for his life; they did not do it. Three time he checked they were asleep. One betrayed him openly and when he was put on the cross they all fled away. This is all in the Gospel "According to Matthew".

This is not a military operation. You do not have a need to outnumber anyone else. It is not even comparable. Jesus ministry was only 3 years long. Without firing a shot or drawing a sword they had tens of thousands of converts in a country hostile to it, and in an empire hostile to it. Muhammad can't produce anything equal to that even when he used force and had stolen loot to offer. I am well aware of the Gospel accounts. I am not aware of what you are trying to suggest they mean. Of course the apostles failed before they received the Holy Spirit after Christ had ascended. That is what transformed them from sheep into lions. Christianity unlike Islam comes with divine power. It is not accomplished through human power. Unlike Islam it requires no armies as it is not of this world.

Am I wrong? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Your paraphrasing of the Gospels is reasonably close to the facts but you do not draw any conclusions from them. So there is nothing to be wrong or right about.

Regards

Muhammad's initial thoughts about what had occurred in the cave are so well known and accepted by Muslims I can't figure out why you deny them. They are part of very reliable texts according to Muslims. They judged non Quran texts as authoritative not me, so why are you requiring me to only use the Quran. I don't get it. Anyway let me know if you want the full write up on this from my previous posts.

 

[paarsurrey]

How interesting! You conveniently left out the next two paragraphs of that article. You know, the ones that describe invasions.

Did you expect to get away with such blatant dishonesty?

Don't be angry.

I have added the passages if it pleases you.
It has though got nothing to do with the spread of Islam; Islam already existed in India from a period much before it very peacefully.

Wars are fought by empires for several reasons; conversion to a religion is not the sole reason for conquests by the empires.

Is it not the truth?

Regards

 

[Poeticus]

It has though got nothing to do with the spread of Islam

If I were to gather all the facepalms that have ever graced the Internet, they still would not be enough to convey the facepalm that deserves to grace the quoted post above. And that's a fact.

 

[paarsurrey]

That's not even the full description on the "spread" of Islam into India. There were very small pockets of Muslim traders in the Western coastal areas of the Subcontinent around the early 700s, but the number of these traders didn't go into the heavy thousands. There weren't even enough of them to convey that Islam had even spread in India around that time.

Then came the Islamic Conquests of the Subcontinent---which are invasions and military conquests and raids that you are persistently leaving out. I have never seen such blatant form of intellectual dishonesty anywhere else in this thread as I have seen it originating from your posts---the refusal to admit or acknowledge that Islam spread into the Subcontinent primarily through violent means, through military subjugation by outside as well as by inside forces.

EDIT: In fact, it would be better, imo, to concentrate on the diverse Islamic beliefs that developed from such an exchange---an "Indian Islamic" response to such rigorism: Sufism; Ahmadi; Ismaili. All of which are looked down upon by mainstream Muslims, and even persecuted to some extent if not outright.

Then came the Islamic Conquests of the Subcontinent---which are invasions and military conquests and raids that you are persistently leaving out.

It is wrong to name them as the "Islamic Conquests of the Subcontinent"; these should be named as "Afghans Conquests of the Subcontinent".

Wars are fought by empires for several reasons that has got nothing to do with the spread of religion; specifically when a religion already existed in there;conversion to a religion is not the sole reason for conquests by the empires.

Isn't it the truth?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

If I were to gather all the facepalms that have ever graced the Internet, they still would not be enough to convey the facepalm that deserves to grace the quoted post above. And that's a fact.

Of course anybody or everybody could disagree with me.

Regards

 

[Poeticus]

It is wrong to name them as the "Islamic Conquests of the Subcontinent"; these should be named as "Afghans Conquests of the Subcontinent".

Wars are fought by empires for several reasons that has got nothing to do with the spread of religion; specifically when a religion already existed in there;conversion to a religion is not the sole reason for conquests by the empires.

Isn't it the truth?

Regards

Of course anybody or everybody could disagree with me.

Regards

Your inability---nay, your carelessness---to retract in light of obvious historical facts and documented realities is frightening. Paarsurrey, religion doesn't spread as if it is some magical pixie dust caressed by a magical wand that's blooming roses and orchids along the way with unicorns graciously galloping into Everland. At the end of the day, it spreads through societal interaction. And war is a part of societal interaction, just as the reality of amicable dialogue is---and Islam spread into the Subcontinent both amicably as well as forcefully.

 

[FearGod]

Your inability---nay, your carelessness---to retract in light of obvious historical facts and documented realities is frightening. Paarsurrey, religion doesn't spread as if it is some magical pixie dust caressed by a magical wand that's blooming roses and orchids along the way with unicorns graciously galloping into Everland. At the end of the day, it spreads through societal interaction. And war is a part of societal interaction, just as the reality of amicable dialogue is---and Islam spread into the Subcontinent both amicably as well as forcefully.

How do you figure that Muslims had invaded other nations for the purpose of spreading Islam.

Is there a verse that says that Muslims are ordered to invade other nations to spread Islam or is there any a hadith that orders Muslims to invade other nations for the purpose of spreading Islam.

How you figured out that Islam was spreading by force and how can you explain that many Indians are converting to Islam nowadays while they know more than you about their own history.

 

[Poeticus]

How do you figure that Muslims had invaded other nations for the purpose of spreading Islam.

Is there a verse that says that Muslims are ordered to invade other nations to spread Islam or is there any a hadith that orders Muslims to invade other nations for the purpose of spreading Islam.

How you figured that Islam was spreading by force and how can you explain that many Indians are converting to Islam nowadays while they know more than you about their own history.

I'd be willing to entertain the questions of this post, as long as you acknowledge that several retractions may be in order. But I doubt that, since the spread of Islam is dogmatically upheld by delusional rigorists as full of rainbows and sunny beaches, and nothing but. And knowing that, I take my leave.

 

[paarsurrey]

Your inability---nay, your carelessness---to retract in light of obvious historical facts and documented realities is frightening. Paarsurrey, religion doesn't spread as if it is some magical pixie dust caressed by a magical wand that's blooming roses and orchids along the way with unicorns graciously galloping into Everland. At the end of the day, it spreads through societal interaction. And war is a part of societal interaction, just as the reality of amicable dialogue is---and Islam spread into the Subcontinent both amicably as well as forcefully.

I don't say that a rational religion doesn't have to face the societal reaction as you have pointed out.

Since we are talking about India and Krishna was also a truthful prophet/messenger of G-d. Like peaceful Muhammad when peaceful Krishna told his people of the truthful religion revealed on him by G-d, instead of accepting him they came out in large numbers to crush him and wipe him out and his followers of the face of the Earth altogether.

Naturally Krishna had to defend himself. This is mentioned in Bhagavad Gita the book ascribed to him.

Well that is not the norm of spread of a religion; if war is forced on the prophets/messenger; the responsibility lies on the society who did it.

Muhammad was instructed by G-d from the day one to spread Islam with rational,reasonable and brilliant argument being revealed on him from G-d; that was the strength he had with him:

The Holy Quran : Chapter 25: Al-Furqan
It is a Meccan Surah/Chapter (Wikipedia)

[25:52] If We had pleased, We could have surely raised a Warner in every city.
[25:53] So obey not the disbelievers and fight against them by means of it (the Qur’an) a great fight.
[25:57] And We have not sent thee but as a bearer of glad tidings and a Warner.
[25:58] Say, ‘I ask of you no recompense for it, save that whoso chooses may take a way unto his Lord.’
[25:59] And trust thou in the Living One, Who dies not, and glorify Him with His praise. And sufficient is He as the Knower of the sins of His servants,

The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online

And even now this is the real strength of Quran/Islam/Muhammad.

Regards

 

[1robin]

It is wrong to name them as the "Islamic Conquests of the Subcontinent"; these should be named as "Afghans Conquests of the Subcontinent".

Wars are fought by empires for several reasons that has got nothing to do with the spread of religion; specifically when a religion already existed in there;conversion to a religion is not the sole reason for conquests by the empires.

Isn't it the truth?

Regards

In Islam's case the earthly empire is the theological empire. It was the fighting over Quran interpretation that almost destroyed Islam from within through military action after Muhammad died. It was the exact same theological fervor that led them to turn all that hatred and vengeance on the Mediterranean world instead of each other. When Arabs call for Israel's destruction it is not a secular issue it is a Islamic one. That is why almost all who do so are Islamic. For example the Christian Palestinians are not shooting rockets at Israel, killing children by the hundreds to dig tunnels into Israel, or denying Israel's right to exists on any significant scale.

 

[1robin]

How do you figure that Muslims had invaded other nations for the purpose of spreading Islam.

The best evidence would probably be the fact that that is exactly what they wound up doing. Where they went in the wake of almost killing their own selves off after Muhammad died it was convert, pay the higher tax and consider your selves subdued, or die, from Arabia to Spain.

At this very moment there has been a shooting in the US that some associate with racial issue between blacks and whites. This has sparked civil unrest in the locality. There have been numerous web sites created by ISUS and other Islamic factions attempting to use the tragedy to spread dissent in the US in order to strengthen calls for sharia and other Islamic issues. Read those sites and see if there is theological motivations behind them or not. They not even attempt to hide it but openly state it.

Let me ask you this, is it the Islamic Palestinians that deny Israel right to exist and shoot rockets in their general direction hoping for maximum civilian casualties or is it the Christian Palestinians doing so? If it is almost exclusively confined to Islamic Palestinians and not Palestinians in general that reflects who does these things how is it not Islam that is it driving it?

 

[paarsurrey]

Was Islam spread by the sword?

No.

For example:
Spread of Islam in Nigeria:

Islam is one of the religions practiced in West Africa. Nigeria has one of the largest Muslim populations in West Africa, 50.4% of Nigeria's population.[1] However, other sources give a little lower estimate of 50%.[2][3][4][5][6]Muslims in Nigeria are predominantly Sunni in the Maliki school, which is also the governing Sharia law.

However, there is a significant Shia minority, primarily in Sokoto State (see Shia in Nigeria). A smaller minority follow theAhmadiyya Islam, a reformatory sect originating in 19th century India. In particular Pew Forum on religious diversity identifies 12% as Shia Muslims while 3% as Ahmadi Muslims.[7]

Islam came to Northern Nigeria as early as the 9th century CE, and was well established in the Kanem-Bornu Empire during the reign of Humme Jilmi. It had spread to the major cities of the northern part of the country by the 16th century, later moving into the countryside and towards the Middle Belt uplands.

Large-scale conversion to Islam happened in the 18th-19th Century.

Spread of Islam[edit]

Islam was first documented in Nigeria in the 9th century.[citation needed] Religious archives showed Islam had been adopted as the religion of the majority of the leading figures in the Bornu Empire during the reign of Mai (king) Idris Alooma (1571–1603), although a large part of that country still adhered to traditional religions.[12]

He furthered the cause of Islam in the country by introducing Islamic courts, establishing mosques, and setting up a hostel in Mecca, the Islamic pilgrimage destination, for Kanuris.[13]

Islam in Nigeria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Regards

 

[1robin]

Was Islam spread by the sword?

No.

For example:
Spread of Islam in Nigeria:

Islam is one of the religions practiced in West Africa. Nigeria has one of the largest Muslim populations in West Africa, 50.4% of Nigeria's population.[1] However, other sources give a little lower estimate of 50%.[2][3][4][5][6]Muslims in Nigeria are predominantly Sunni in the Maliki school, which is also the governing Sharia law.

However, there is a significant Shia minority, primarily in Sokoto State (see Shia in Nigeria). A smaller minority follow theAhmadiyya Islam, a reformatory sect originating in 19th century India. In particular Pew Forum on religious diversity identifies 12% as Shia Muslims while 3% as Ahmadi Muslims.[7]

Islam came to Northern Nigeria as early as the 9th century CE, and was well established in the Kanem-Bornu Empire during the reign of Humme Jilmi. It had spread to the major cities of the northern part of the country by the 16th century, later moving into the countryside and towards the Middle Belt uplands.

Large-scale conversion to Islam happened in the 18th-19th Century.

Spread of Islam[edit]

Islam was first documented in Nigeria in the 9th century.[citation needed] Religious archives showed Islam had been adopted as the religion of the majority of the leading figures in the Bornu Empire during the reign of Mai (king) Idris Alooma (1571–1603), although a large part of that country still adhered to traditional religions.[12]

He furthered the cause of Islam in the country by introducing Islamic courts, establishing mosques, and setting up a hostel in Mecca, the Islamic pilgrimage destination, for Kanuris.[13]

Islam in Nigeria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Regards

I have not even been reading these references to little known nations, but I happen to read this one. It does not say anything that answers how Islam spread even as it applies to the nation it concerns. It is just some neutral facts about how many Muslims are there, what percentages exist, how long it has been there. How does any of that prove anything?

 

[FearGod]

The best evidence would probably be the fact that that is exactly what they wound up doing. Where they went in the wake of almost killing their own selves off after Muhammad died it was convert, pay the higher tax and consider your selves subdued, or die, from Arabia to Spain.

At this very moment there has been a shooting in the US that some associate with racial issue between blacks and whites. This has sparked civil unrest in the locality. There have been numerous web sites created by ISUS and other Islamic factions attempting to use the tragedy to spread dissent in the US in order to strengthen calls for sharia and other Islamic issues. Read those sites and see if there is theological motivations behind them or not. They not even attempt to hide it but openly state it.

Let me ask you this, is it the Islamic Palestinians that deny Israel right to exist and shoot rockets in their general direction hoping for maximum civilian casualties or is it the Christian Palestinians doing so? If it is almost exclusively confined to Islamic Palestinians and not Palestinians in general that reflects who does these things how is it not Islam that is it driving it?

It is normal to pay taxes, it is happening nowadays, if i work in US, i have to pay taxes but in Islamic state non-muslims pay Jizya and muslims pay zakat.

I can't see how the Palestinian conflict is related to this issue.

 

[paarsurrey]

In Islam's case the earthly empire is the theological empire. It was the fighting over Quran interpretation that almost destroyed Islam from within through military action after Muhammad died. It was the exact same theological fervor that led them to turn all that hatred and vengeance on the Mediterranean world instead of each other. When Arabs call for Israel's destruction it is not a secular issue it is a Islamic one. That is why almost all who do so are Islamic. For example the Christian Palestinians are not shooting rockets at Israel, killing children by the hundreds to dig tunnels into Israel, or denying Israel's right to exists on any significant scale.

Sorry; we discuss here in Religious Education Forum / Religious Topics / Religious Debates from the religious perspective, not from the political perspective.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

In Islam's case the earthly empire is the theological empire. It was the fighting over Quran interpretation that almost destroyed Islam from within through military action after Muhammad died. It was the exact same theological fervor that led them to turn all that hatred and vengeance on the Mediterranean world instead of each other. When Arabs call for Israel's destruction it is not a secular issue it is a Islamic one. That is why almost all who do so are Islamic. For example the Christian Palestinians are not shooting rockets at Israel, killing children by the hundreds to dig tunnels into Israel, or denying Israel's right to exists on any significant scale.

In Islam's case the earthly empire is the theological empire.

Islam/Quran/Muhammad support equitable ruling system where are citizens are treated equally,equitably and with justice.

In present times it could be a secular society where religion and state are separate. You may like read the following in this connection:

Mirza Tahir Ahmad separation of religion and state Surinam Africa

https://www.alislam.org/books/shariah/

Regards

 

[Looncall]

Islam/Quran/Muhammad support equitable ruling system where are citizens are treated equally,equitably and with justice.

In present times it could be a secular society where religion and state are separate. You may like read the following in this connection:

Mirza Tahir Ahmad separation of religion and state Surinam Africa

https://www.alislam.org/books/shariah/

Regards

So why are muslim-majority societies nothing like you describe?