Was Islam spread by the sword?

[Chev Chelios]

Islam was never spread by the sword. How can a one man begin spreading it by the sword?

How can a minority spread it by the sword?

Point to me 1 time in the Quraan the word Sword was used?

It wasn't just one man that spread it by the sword!

 

[Chev Chelios]

I would have to agree with the above, at least most of it if not all of it.

The notion purported by apologetics that a religious tax is no different than the taxes proposed and collected under secular governments is not only misleading but ultimately a false correlation. A tax under secular governments is not theological in orientation. A religious tax, on the other hand, is imposed out of the rigorist colloquial best described as the following: the perpetual reiteration of the superiority of one's religious conviction. A secular tax is not meant to discriminate; the mere act of collecting revenue from non-members through a religious tax, on the other hand, is radically discriminatory: it is segregating and hierarchal at its very core. In essence, the reality of a religious tax would be no different than slaves paying more than freedmen---either through monetary means or through physical restitutions. In a rational world or setting, religious taxes are abominably backward and their very existence is heinous. It indirectly invades the pluralistic notion of freedom of thought and deed; and monetarily suppresses it in the long-run.

An absolutely superbly written answer - it is what I was trying to say!

 

[1robin]

Sorry; I don't agree with you.

That is irrelevant. I expected you to disagree with anything that is inconvenient. I did not expect it to come without even a hint of a justification.

 

[Ryujin]

Christian Palestinians don't use lands granted them to fire rockets, invade Israel periodically, and snipe at civilians in general so the problem is Islam not Palestinian even if many Islamic Palestinians have had enough and no longer do those things.
.

This answer reminded me of a couple other things I wanted to ask you.

Many say that Christianity is eurocentric and that Christian culture is nearly synonymous to western culture. This isn't too surprising, since a little less than half of all Christians live in Europe and North America( and that's not counting South America, South Africa, Australia or other regions that are primarily "Western" or "European" cultured) How do you answer those that say it marginalizes and displaces non-western cultures? Do you think that this culture is superior to all others? Some of your posts lead me to wonder if you do.

Next, I know that you value military might and aggressive military action highly. You've articulated that you think that if we applied our metaphorical sword more often and more deeply that the world would be a better place. My question is this: How do you square your deep religious faith in Christianity, with it's "turn the other cheek" philosophy, with this value? If one were to read the gospels without context and bias, then they would likely come away understanding it as a pacifist work. You can correct me on this if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that Christ never states that violence and killing is ever allowed and, In fact, seems to take the opposite stance: that it is never justified and that if you are attacked or oppressed, to embrace the attacker. For he even says "Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either." And also, "Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two."


You don't see a conflict?


Furthermore, about the quote above. It's important to realize that, over the years, Palestinians in the West bank and, especially, in Gaza people have died in huge numbers, both civilian and military. Especially in Gaza, it is rare to find a family that has not lost a loved one or friend or that does not know someone that has lost a loved one or friend to Israeli attacks. Regardless of whether you could make a convincing argument that it was someone else's fault for forcing Israel to kill them or that it was their own fault for whatever reason, it'd be unlikely to work in converting them to your line of thought. It is, perhaps, no so hard to imagine that the Palestinians harbor so much hostility toward Israel, regardless of whether it is justified. This is a matter of emotion and we all must try to empathize if we wish to understand the conflict.

Looking at the current state of things and ignoring, if only for a moment, the "Who started it" debate, you'd have to admit, if someone you loved was killed by a foreign government, even if it said it had really good reasons to kill them, that it'd be hard not to harbor some resentment toward that government. Now take that feeling and multiple it many times over and add the feelings generated by those that have lost their homes and community centers. I just mean to say that empathy to all involved, regardless of their race or religion, is vital.


Lastly, perhaps you are right. Maybe the reason that Christians are not a big problem in Palestine is their religion. Maybe they, in Christ's homeland, stay closer to the pacifism originally preached by Christ in the gospels.


Thoughts?

 

[1robin]

Islam was never spread by the sword. How can a one man begin spreading it by the sword?

How can a minority spread it by the sword?

Point to me 1 time in the Quraan the word Sword was used?

I will find you a dozen if you will admit it did use the sword to support it's self when I do. Deal? BTW why do the people who themselves validate non-Quranic texts restrict others to only the Quran. Islam validates other texts, are they wrong in doing so? If not why can't others use them?

 

[Ryujin]

Different factions of the Islamic army (for lack of a better word)

Maybe, hoard?

converted all these warlike tribes by merit the way Christianity did in Rome?

You think that Christianity converted all those in the former Roman Empire by it's MERIT? Really?

Natural conversions were not much higher in number than the religions of Isis or Mithras. The bulk of Roman citizens that converted to Christianity did so only after it was made the only allowed religion in the empire and the conversion was not complete until several waves of christian persecution killed or coerced those that held out.

 

[MD]

Islam was never spread by the sword. How can a one man begin spreading it by the sword?

How can a minority spread it by the sword?

Point to me 1 time in the Quraan the word Sword was used?

Wow. Although I agree a lot of Islam was spread by trade there is ample historical evidence that shows Islam also was spread brutally. Either you continue living in your bubble or wake up to evidence and reality.

 

[Ryujin]

This answer reminded me of a couple other things I wanted to ask you.

Also, just wanted to say that I do agree with you on the importance of military action and I do, in fact, also value it highly. I will be the first to argue for a military response to injustice, at any level. I simply do not think that this veiwpoint is consistent with Christianity. Just, FYI.

 

[Mycroft]

I would like to reply to your post but this thread is about Islam and not Christianity. If you'd like, feel free to start another debate thread.

But do not all religions offer only oppression? The idea that you must believe in a particular god, or suffer the torments of a hell seems quite oppressive to me.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

But do not all religions offer only oppression? The idea that you must believe in a particular god, or suffer the torments of a hell seems quite oppressive to me.

A wonderful thing

Do you know that Islam says that all Muslims will visit hell before they go to the bliss and the nymphs and the subject of this independent
وهذه هي الاية باللغة العربية
وان منكم لواردها وكان امر بك حتما مقضيا
In short that everyone will visit hell
Because the LORD had commanded in the Koran

This is not a slur
Is a Quranic verse

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Wow. Although I agree a lot of Islam was spread by trade there is ample historical evidence that shows Islam also was spread brutally. Either you continue living in your bubble or wake up to evidence and reality.

Speech realistic gorgeous
Islam spread by the sword in the first movement, terrorism and Badzlkbaltrgab and enticement is one of the means traders
And brokers
For example, polygamy Targheeb
The enticement booty
Muslims will live with verses of the Koran
If divorced his orthodoxy

 

[Sabour]

I will find you a dozen if you will admit it did use the sword to support it's self when I do. Deal? BTW why do the people who themselves validate non-Quranic texts restrict others to only the Quran. Islam validates other texts, are they wrong in doing so? If not why can't others use them?

If you're doing so just to prove me wrong and your mind is already fixed about Islam, than no thanks.

If you want to exchange some ideas, than go ahead.

I can't admit something when it is false.

 

[Sabour]

It wasn't just one man that spread it by the sword!

it was minority ?

 

[Sabour]

Wow. Although I agree a lot of Islam was spread by trade there is ample historical evidence that shows Islam also was spread brutally. Either you continue living in your bubble or wake up to evidence and reality.

How can Islam be spread brutally when it Quraan says there is no compulsion in religion.

How can Islam be spread brutally when Quraan is against that.

 

[paarsurrey]

Was Islam spread by the sword?

No.

For example:

Spread of Islam in São Tomé and Príncipe:

São Tomé and Príncipe, with a total population of about 181,000, has about 5,500 Muslim inhabitants, about 3 percent of the population. The majority (an estimated 80 percent) are Roman Catholics; São Tomé and Príncipe was for many years a colony of Portugal, which is overwhelmingly Catholic.[1]
There are also no known mosques, madrasahs or other Muslim organizations operating in the country.[2]

I don't see any sword in spread of Islam in São Tomé and Príncipe.

Regards

 

[Mycroft]

A wonderful thing

Do you know that Islam says that all Muslims will visit hell before they go to the bliss and the nymphs and the subject of this independent

As-Salamu Alaykum.

How is that a wonderful thing?

 

[1robin]

If you're doing so just to prove me wrong and your mind is already fixed about Islam, than no thanks.

If you want to exchange some ideas, than go ahead.

I can't admit something when it is false.

I only wish I could find a Muslim that will admit X is X when X is shown to be X. That is what I am after. I will let you decide if you want me to move on to showing Surah that justify violence.

 

[1robin]

How can Islam be spread brutally when it Quraan says there is no compulsion in religion.

How can Islam be spread brutally when Quraan is against that.

The Quran constantly makes mutually exclusive claims. It may say there is no compulsion in one verse and then demand compulsion in another. This is because Muhammad had no military power at one time and tried to court others to join him with words of peace. After he acquired military power later on then you get these awful violent verses. But it gets even worse, he said the later violent verses abrogate the earlier peaceful verses.


However even if the Quran contained nothing but peace it is not the Quran who is spreading the faith. It is men. Men at least as fallible as any other. Christians have attempted to spread our faith by force even though our faith has no violent verse that apply today and no abrogation. What men do is never constrained by a book even if that book preaches only peace, which the Quran does not.

 

[1robin]

This answer reminded me of a couple other things I wanted to ask you.

Ok

Many say that Christianity is eurocentric and that Christian culture is nearly synonymous to western culture. This isn't too surprising, since a little less than half of all Christians live in Europe and North America( and that's not counting South America, South Africa, Australia or other regions that are primarily "Western" or "European" cultured) How do you answer those that say it marginalizes and displaces non-western cultures? Do you think that this culture is superior to all others? Some of your posts lead me to wonder if you do.

Christianity is western Asian centric, but Europe would be a close second. However it may change based on what you mean by centric and what time period is in question. It has certainly affected western civilization more than anything else. It is said western culture is built on Jerusalem and Athens. I would add in Rome.

Christian faith has been the glue that has held the west together. It and democracy are what made them kind of uniform. Now I am sure that the bible being the most divisive subject in human history it has divided culture to some extant. You would have to judge it's unifying effect versus its divisive effect and that would be hard to do. However I would rather have 50% that were right and 50% that were wrong that 100% unity in being wrong and doomed.
Truth is always divisive. Those that accept it are always at odds with those that deny it.

Next, I know that you value military might and aggressive military action highly. You've articulated that you think that if we applied our metaphorical sword more often and more deeply that the world would be a better place. My question is this: How do you square your deep religious faith in Christianity, with it's "turn the other cheek" philosophy, with this value? If one were to read the gospels without context and bias, then they would likely come away understanding it as a pacifist work. You can correct me on this if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that Christ never states that violence and killing is ever allowed and, In fact, seems to take the opposite stance: that it is never justified and that if you are attacked or oppressed, to embrace the attacker. For he even says "Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either." And also, "Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two."

I am not sure if value it is correct. I appreciate it. For example there is almost nothing about ancient Sparta I find good but they may have been the best soldiers for their time than any in history. I can appreciate something without always agreeing with it.

I wish that no literal swords were necessary at any time. Regardless we live in a world full of evil. Evil does not stop, it cannot be reasoned with, it does not abbey rules, it can never be trusted, and only respects power. It will always win if unopposed. The only thing necessary for evil too prevail is for good men to do nothing. Now in that context I am pro war, but war is still not good just necessary.

My faith was never intended to govern nations nor apply to war. It was not designed to be a earthly based state system. It was to be a spiritually based personal system. IOW I am to treat men personally as it suggests but our corporate duties to our neighbors and nation are another matter. The bible must be read as a whole and with common sense. If we turned the other cheek with al-Qaida they will view it as weakness and strike. Sometimes it gets confusing but God has never condemned a nation who justly fought evil and he in fact ordered it himself many times. So I must integrate they OT black flag battles with the NT turn the other cheek scriptures into a consistent whole.

You don't see a conflict?

I can see how someone who does not understand the whole bible might see a surface conflict. I can sympathize, even though I know a comprehensive understanding of the whole bible clears up most of these issues. It would take me a long time to step by step point out all the doctrines involved here. I would suggest you look up Christian doctrine and war where it has already been done many times. Christians have intensely studied these things for over a thousand years and much information is available.

Furthermore, about the quote above. It's important to realize that, over the years, Palestinians in the West bank and, especially, in Gaza people have died in huge numbers, both civilian and military. Especially in Gaza, it is rare to find a family that has not lost a loved one or friend or that does not know someone that has lost a loved one or friend to Israeli attacks. Regardless of whether you could make a convincing argument that it was someone else's fault for forcing Israel to kill them or that it was their own fault for whatever reason, it'd be unlikely to work in converting them to your line of thought. It is, perhaps, no so hard to imagine that the Palestinians harbor so much hostility toward Israel, regardless of whether it is justified. This is a matter of emotion and we all must try to empathize if we wish to understand the conflict.

That is true in that it exists, it is not true in that it is proper. Palestine's problems have Palestinian causes from day one. I will just give one example. The Jews were forcibly taken from their 3000 plus year homeland and dispersed in large numbers. Palestinians simply moved into the vacancy. They never had a right to one square inch of that land. In 1948 the Jews were given only 50% of their own land back and the Palestinians offered the rest despite having no claim to anything. Now which side refused. Israel said fine, Palestine not only said no but that Israel must be destroyed. Now if they want sympathy then admit the mistake and quit killing people. Note the following.

1. Only the Islamic Palestinians keep up this unjust fighting that kills their people. The Christian Palestinians seem to know when enough injustice is enough and how stupid picking on people who can whip you is.
2. Palestine has no claim to any land what so ever in Israel proper. Israel has every right in every category there is by which rights to land are justified.
3. Israel could do so but has never attempted to wipe out any Palestinian or Arab nation. Most Arab nations have not only claimed but tried to wipe out Israel time after time.
4. This is the central matter: If the Arabs laid down their weapons today there would be peace tomorrow. If the Jews laid down their weapons today there would be no Israel tomorrow. The Arabs can quit and live in peace. They will not let the Jews do so nor themselves.

I can go on but there is no need. You said I won't convince those who disagree. That is probably true but that does not mean I am not correct. I am called to speak truth, I am not responsible for what is done with it. If the truth can't stop them from tunneling into Israel unfortunately a bullet will. Its' their choice.

Looking at the current state of things and ignoring, if only for a moment, the "Who started it" debate, you'd have to admit, if someone you loved was killed by a foreign government, even if it said it had really good reasons to kill them, that it'd be hard not to harbor some resentment toward that government. Now take that feeling and multiple it many times over and add the feelings generated by those that have lost their homes and community centers. I just mean to say that empathy to all involved, regardless of their race or religion, is vital.

That is probably true in general but not for me. I have studied war so long and have changed so dramatically as a result of faith that I no longer think typically. I can rise above our inherent flaws and see things as they are at times. You are right that I value military capacity but I value truth and Christ more. Christ showed us something new. When he was attacked sin was not repaid upon the attackers. Man is constantly paying other men back in a never ending cycle of revenge. Christ did not. Sin ended with him. However he was a little different that Israel. He could be caused pain and misery but his enemies could not destroy him, and killing him would not destroy countless others. Israel is in a sea of enemies that have vowed in public to wipe them out. A person may lose his in God's service but he is not asked to sacrifice all his countrymen's lives on the alter of his enemies pure evil. God would never ask that.


Israel has been right in every war that the Arabs started. However like you say lets ignore this. What we can't ignore is the Palestinians will always lose and suffer terrible loss for their aggression. It is not only wrong but insane for them to keep up this lunatic cycle of revenge. They will not survive it.

Lastly, perhaps you are right. Maybe the reason that Christians are not a big problem in Palestine is their religion. Maybe they, in Christ's homeland, stay closer to the pacifism originally preached by Christ in the gospels.

That may be true in some cases but it is probably to idealistic for all. I think that Christians are just wiser that those who follow lies and are not so filled with hate. They can view this thing practically and see they will only suffer in carrying it out. IOW it is just stupid to keep poking the tiger. Forget al the past wrongs and try and salvage a little peace. Israel will be happy to never fight another battle and leave them alone.

Thoughts?

A few.

 

[1robin]

Maybe, hoard?

That or rabble.

You think that Christianity converted all those in the former Roman Empire by it's MERIT? Really?

Initially yes. Only much later was there violence and it was not about evangelism. Constantine's mother was a Christian but Christianity was illegal in Rome. Constantine was not a Christian and was involved in a war against Rome. He had some kind of conversion and was told to continue his battle under a Christian symbol. He won despite being outnumbered but he only made Christianity legal, he did not force it one anyone and left all other faiths in tact. Only after Christianity by the force of merit started converting everyone was there tension. The pagans were so resentful of these Christians converting everyone that tensions arose that eventually led to some fights. Regardless Christianity was made legal by force but spread by merit in general. There were probably some exceptions to that but as a rule it holds.

Natural conversions were not much higher in number than the religions of Isis or Mithras. The bulk of Roman citizens that converted to Christianity did so only after it was made the only allowed religion in the empire and the conversion was not complete until several waves of christian persecution killed or coerced those that held out.

Of course that was true. The followers of ISUS were promoted and Christian's killed. Force made Christianity legal but merit made it grow larger than the former pagan faiths. Only then did tensions flare up. Only after this did Christianity receive any favoritism. I do not think paganism was ever outlawed but it eventually did fall out of favor with Constantine after all the retaliations using force it had made.

Let me summarize.


1. Constantine already fighting a war was told to win it under the banner of God. He did so.
2. He used his power to legalize Christianity.
3. Christianity soon surpassed paganism by merit alone (with maybe a rare exception or two).
4. The pagans resented this shift in power and retaliated with force. The Christian fought back with force.
5. To end this unrest Constantine made Christianity the dominant faith and paganism the less favored one as it actually was. This occurred slowly and bit by bit as money was diverted from pagan projects to Christian ones but I do not think paganism was ever outlawed.