Was Islam spread by the sword?

[1robin]

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.

How is acknowledging truth oppressive?

 

[Sees]

That or rabble.




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.

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.

Really my man, Pagan religion was definitely outlawed and basically tortured out of existence in Rome. Little by little the temples and practices were stamped out in organized fashion. Plenty of punishment, burning, smashing, death, etc. used to sway people to get in line. And these are some of the most peaceful and gentle portions of Christianization in the books.

For some reason there is a lingering, unspoken myth that seems to carry these perspectives...that when Abrahamic religions are preached to pagan polytheists - the clouds begin to part, the sun shines bright, and they miraculously realize the error of their ways. Throw in an angelic choir singing Hallelujah even. In history, such has happened to maybe a handful of isolated tribes.

 

[Looncall]

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.

Har, Har!

If there is any consistent thread among muslims societies it is compulsion in religion. The quran evidently counts for very little with muslims.

 

[paarsurrey]

@ mahasn ebn sawresho: Post#667

At the beginning of the call of Muhammad did not announce that he Messenger

The Meccans believed in G-d but associated with Him human intercessors as partners.

Quran/Islam/Muhammad have given a Kalima (or motto/slogan) to Muslims:

There is none worthy of worship except Allah (the One-True-God); Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah (the One-True-God).

A Muslim has to testify both the above items (Oneness of G-d and prophet-hood of Muhammad) to become a Muslim. From the day one Muhammad was given a message for the whole mankind and appointed prophet/messenger by Allah (the One-True-God).

For example I quote here The Holy Quran : Chapter 97: Al-Qadr
Classification: Meccan.

[97:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[97:2] Surely, We sent it* down on the Night of Destiny.
[97:3] And what should make thee know what the Night of Destiny is?
[97:4] The Night of Destiny is better than a thousand months.
[97:5] Therein descend angels and the Spirit by the command of their Lord — with every matter.
[97:6] It is all peace till the rising of the dawn.
The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online
* It for Quran.
* Him for Muhammad

This chapter revealed at Mecca corrected, rectified and reformed concepts of Meccans, Christians and Jews at one go.

Muhammad was a straightforward person; he told exactly what was revealed on him by Allah in the teeth of the opposition whoever they might be; Meccans, Christians and or Jews.

The declaration was unequivocal but the non-believers were told that they could co-exist with Muslims peacefully remaining firm on their beliefs; freedom of religion was allowed.

Please correct yourself. The message was clear and the messenger was straightforward; yet peaceful for everybody.

Regards

 

[Shad]

That or rabble.




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.

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.

3, 4 and 5 are not accurate or are in error.

Christianity was already the majority in the East before his conversion or in fact his birth. The East has been developed for centuries even prior to Roman conquest which enabled increased communication of ideas over time and distance. There were forced conversions in the East under Tiridates III. This led to a revolt and massacre of non-Christians by Tiridates III. The implications of forced conversions of the first Christian State undermines a merit argument in this instance. In Roman governed territory forced conversion was rare. However there are similarities between immortality of the Hellenistic afterlife and that of Christianity. The dominate doctrine that conversion did not involve abandonment of all cultural identification for another identity unlike that of Judaism was favorable to those converting. Christanity was far more palpable

In the West Christianity was a minority under 20% of the population. The growth rate of Christianity in the West is large confined to periods after Constantine. Growth was isolated to larger settlements but made little head way into more isolated or under-developed settlements. So merit only seems to have any major effect based on locality.

Constantine destroyed a number of Pagan sites in the East. The Temple of Asclepius in Cilicia for example. Whatever wealth these sites retained was plundered by the state. Although many pagan religions were already in declines before Constantine birth. He at the least accelerated the process. These sites were often destroyed due to conflicts with Christian social and religious norms, view he held. No pagan temples were built in Constantinople during his reign. He used public funding to build Christian Temples. He outlawed divination and magic which is central to many pagan beliefs.

If anything Constantine set the ground work of a state sponsored religious ideology of his actions and continued by his successors. His policy saw the rise of Christian fundamentalism and increased violence against pagans. His successors increased the practice and severity of these policies. Julian was the sole pagan reactionary. His acts turned a largely pacifist religion into one of sectarian conflicts, fundamentalism and violence.

 

[gnostic]

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.

For Christians who don't deny that early Christians were persecuted and oppressed, but deny they did persecute and oppress paganism, just show that Christian hypocrisy still exist today.

Constantine did oppress pagans, and allow Christians destroy pagan temples. And it got worse after his death and over the centuries.

Your history of Constantine is very selective. Jesus may have taught not the persecute others, and that was probably true in the 1st couple of centuries of church history, but table had turned, when Christians got their hands on real power - the persecuted and oppressed become then persecutors and oppressors.

Sure, there were peaceful conversion and freely accepted change of religion, but there have also being forced conversions in other circumstances and other places. Merits has nothing to do with it.

 

[Sabour]

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.

Friend, just let me tell you I am not a follower of a religion which tells me to go around kill people and try to spread Islam. I will never have it that way, I assure you.

I am a follower of Islam. I am not a follower of what muslims seem to be doing.

If you read through the Quraan, you can see how a muslim is supposed to be.

I am here to defend Islam and not to defend what muslims seem to be doing

 

[gnostic]

The way I understand it, when Mecca had surrendered to Muhammad, he had letters written to their neighbours, the Byzantine and Persian empires, asking to convert his new religion.

I don't recall if either of the two reply to Muhammad, ignore him, or whatever, but had to invade Byzantine territory - Syria, but had died before this could happen. But they (Muslims) did invade Syria, and later Persia, in the 7th century, after his death. Apparently, they didn't like the answers or silence from either empires, so they aggressively invade both.

If that's not force, then what is it?

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

For Christians who don't deny that early Christians were persecuted and oppressed, but deny they did persecute and oppress paganism, just show that Christian hypocrisy still exist today.

Constantine did oppress pagans, and allow Christians destroy pagan temples. And it got worse after his death and over the centuries.

Your history of Constantine is very selective. Jesus may have taught not the persecute others, and that was probably true in the 1st couple of centuries of church history, but table had turned, when Christians got their hands on real power - the persecuted and oppressed become then persecutors and oppressors.

Sure, there were peaceful conversion and freely accepted change of religion, but there have also being forced conversions in other circumstances and other places. Merits has nothing to do with it.

Whatever happened in the history of the spread of Christianity
The question remains important you raise the sword of Christ
Is lifting his disciples sword
Is Occupy other countries
Everything that is done after the spread of Christianity is the process of building the infrastructure and organization in a new way
It is natural that includes the construction of temples and convert some of the temples to churches
What I'm saying is not Abrer
But what happened is roughly
The question remains important
Is there a provision in the Bible allows religious wars
Does the imposition of the Christian faith Bay and means of sexual enticement
Nmuamm Many look to the Christian religion it is difficult to apply through the refusal of many sexual desires
Many past and present say the weakness in Christianity
So Christianity did not spread by force, as believed
* Spread in a society where everything was permissible, sex and moral chaos
Power and grandeur of colonial
Rome and its greatness
But his vision became converted to Christianity differ
Christian refuses to greatness and also refuses to pornography

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

What I'm talking about is not new.
Because it is what is called for by George Bernard Shaw
When he refuses to reject Christianity because it turned the greatness of the city of Rome to the city of humility
The colonial ambition can not be a Christian believes in him
That this was a weakness of Christianity
In spite of this point, the spread of Christianity and settled because of her words and not Baigoh
And to this day
Yes, most of the Europeans thinkers
Know this weakness and this, they are trying to fill this gap in Christianity
Because of the gap that ended the Christian presence in the Middle
It could also end up in the West
If not addressed this gap
And I finally Aacol immediate but gradual finally got us as Eastern Christians

 

[paarsurrey]

Was Islam spread by the sword?

No.

For example:

Spread of Islam in Senegal:[1]

Islam is the predominant religion in Senegal. 92 percent of the country's population is estimated to be Muslim,[1] mainly Sunniof Maliki school of thought with Sufi influences.[2] Islam has had a presence in Senegal since the 11th century.

Sufi brotherhoods expanded with French colonization, as people turned to religious authority rather than the colonial administration. The main Sufi orders are the Tijaniyyah, the Muridiyyah or Mourides, and to a lesser extent, the pan-Islamic Qadiriyyah and the smaller Layeneorder. Approximately 1% of the Muslims follow the Ahmadiyya thought.[3]

History

The Introduction of Islam[edit]

For nearly a millennium, there has been an Islamic presence in Senegal. Islam’s influence in the area began with the conversion of King of Takrur, War Jabi in 1040,[4] likely as a result of the Trans-Saharan trade between North and West Africa.[5] The King attempted to convert his subjects, who are now referred to as Tukulors or the Toucouleur people,[4] in the first attempt to convert an entire region in this area.

Other empires, such as the Jolof empire, were more resistant to Islam in favor of their traditional religion.[5] Even in areas where an Islamic presence was found, many continued traditional animist practices, according to Portuguese accounts.[4]

Islam in Senegal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Regards

 

[Mycroft]

How is acknowledging truth oppressive?

If I put a gun to your head nad tell you to believe something or suffer the consequences, is that not oppressive? That's essentially what god does; Hell is the perverbial gun held against the head.

 

[FearGod]

If I put a gun to your head nad tell you to believe something or suffer the consequences, is that not oppressive? That's essentially what god does; Hell is the perverbial gun held against the head.

Not true, the hell is for bad doers and oppressors ....etc and moreover everyone is free in doing sins, no guns on our heads.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Not true, the hell is for bad doers and oppressors ....etc and moreover everyone is free in doing sins, no guns on our heads.

It's true
When the spread of Islam used the sword
But today Islam uses the gun and the gun, as well as bombers and also uses intellectual terrorism
By preventing the publication of any information which would reveal the truth of Islam
And you and others do not want others to know that Mohammed was killed old or cinnamon atrocious manner and do you deny it
* And You want people to know that the man slaughtered 500 Mahmedktl
And that Muhammad is the fight
And just want to say that the spread of Islam in a peaceful manner
No, my friend,
Altarichalasalama not peacefully
Is the continual wars

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

The oldest you and to every Muslim
Simple address book
Arab Prophet art of war
Author Name
Gen. Mustafa Talas
Many references in the book, and many states and census to invasions and wars of Muhammad

 

[Shad]

Not true, the hell is for bad doers and oppressors ....etc and moreover everyone is free in doing sins, no guns on our heads.

If lack of belief merits a judgement of hell then this is a threat of future violence. No more than if I threatened someone who did not believe me with future violence. If lack of belief does not result in one going to hell this diminishes belief. Considering many of the major morals in Islam are shared by every other religion and secular society, the save bet is to reject all religions rather than picking the wrong one. If I am a good person faith becomes moot.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

If lack of belief merits a judgement of hell then this is a threat of future violence. No more than if I threatened someone who did not believe me with future violence. If lack of belief does not result in one going to hell this diminishes belief. Considering many of the major morals in Islam are shared by every other religion and secular society, the save bet is to reject all religions rather than picking the wrong one. If I am a good person faith becomes moot.

It is not true
Equality of religions in the same balance -
Every religion has its advantages
And what is Tervdanh violence
Permission must be sought Where is this ideology
And then you can reject those intellectual Alaalogih
With all due respect

 

[FearGod]

If lack of belief merits a judgement of hell then this is a threat of future violence. No more than if I threatened someone who did not believe me with future violence. If lack of belief does not result in one going to hell this diminishes belief. Considering many of the major morals in Islam are shared by every other religion and secular society, the save bet is to reject all religions rather than picking the wrong one. If I am a good person faith becomes moot.

And what prevents someone to be religious if he accepted the morality and the goodness of one specific religion.

I think there is a contradiction between good and evil, religious and irreligious.

 

[Mycroft]

And what prevents someone to be religious if he accepted the morality and the goodness of one specific religion.

I think there is a contradiction between good and evil, religious and irreligious.

What if I find religion/god to be immoral (I do)? My morality prevents me subscribing to either idea.

 

[Shad]

And what prevents someone to be religious if he accepted the morality and the goodness of one specific religion.

I think there is a contradiction between good and evil, religious and irreligious.

People could become religious or not because it is in line, or not, with their morality, they had a religious experience, indoctrination, placebo effect, etc, etc. There are positive and negative reasons for acceptance or rejection of a religion. After all I follow some moral codes found in various religions without proscribing to them. I do not steal, I do not murder. The general moral codes of many faiths I agree with. Yet I find other details such as the concept of slavery in certain faiths to be immoral. So I can reject a religion which even remotely promotes the institution of slavery no matter how well a slave is treated.

Yes such is an issue when certain people or doctrines, regardless of religion identification, take a fundamental stance against opposing views. Any group can isolate itself or react violently to opposing views. However in the case many religions do promote believes as those seeking to emulate the paragon of good in the form of God. Believer becomes associated with good. To reject God or a view of God held by the believer is to side with evil in the form of Satan or other symbolic figures of vices. Unbeliever becomes associated with evil. For many religious views are all encompassing black and white views, good and bad.

It is not true
Equality of religions in the same balance -
Every religion has its advantages
And what is Tervdanh violence
Permission must be sought Where is this ideology
And then you can reject those intellectual Alaalogih
With all due respect

It may not be true to you. However it is true to some and propagated by these people. Often employed in the case when one rejects their views. Granted I should of put a disclaim that is not true for all religions nor all interpretations. Regardless of individual view if my statement is correct then it is a threat. If it is not it diminishes the belief.