• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Was Islam spread by the sword?

Status
Not open for further replies.

1robin

Christian/Baptist
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.
It would be but that is not what God does. He says you can acknowledge the truth and live with all the benefits of that truth, or you can deny it and suffer the loss of everything that believing a lie comes with. You can chose God and in the end that is what you get with everything that comes with it. Or you can deny God and loose everything that would have came with him. In the end you get exactly what you wanted. Truth or the lack of it. That is not oppressive. Hell is the absence of God and everything that costs. God is the author of life I believe Hell is the annihilation of that life he gave you. You go back to square one, non existence. It is not eternal torture. He gave you everything, you used it to deny him and so he takes it all back. Where is the injustice?
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
What if I find religion/god to be immoral (I do)? My morality prevents me subscribing to either idea.
Any morality made in the absence of moral truth is or should be secondary to that moral truth. If we are so screwed up we think wrong is right and right is wrong where is the injustice of paying the cost for that moral insanity? If God exists he (not you or me) is the standard for moral truth.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Divine command theory. Is it moral because God say it is or because it is objectively moral. Is slavery moral?
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Divine command theory. Is it moral because God say it is or because it is objectively moral. Is slavery moral?
That is not divine command theory it is the meaningless and not applicable Eyuthyphro's dilemma. Morality with Go dis neither his opinion on the matter or something he selected from an external standard. His morals are reflections of his objective eternal nature. His does not pick morals he morality.
 

FearGod

Freedom Of Mind
Divine command theory. Is it moral because God say it is or because it is objectively moral. Is slavery moral?

If oppression is involved then it is immoral.

The world slave doesn't mean that you should oppress the one working for you.

The domestic helper or maid will obey the boss orders,do this,do that, but if oppression is involved then that will be evil.
 

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
If oppression is involved then it is immoral.

The world slave doesn't mean that you should oppress the one working for you.

The domestic helper or maid will obey the boss orders,do this,do that, but if oppression is involved then that will be evil.

I think ownership of another human being is evil regardless if they treat them well or not.
 

FearGod

Freedom Of Mind
I think ownership of another human being is evil regardless if they treat them well or not.

Do you think it is bad and evil to own a horse and if not then why do you think that the horse as a creation of God can be owned by us, why we are better than the horse or why some humans are better than other humans.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
That is not divine command theory it is the meaningless and not applicable Eyuthyphro's dilemma. Morality with Go dis neither his opinion on the matter or something he selected from an external standard. His morals are reflections of his objective eternal nature. His does not pick morals he morality.

So God supports slavery as it is in his nature. So slavery is moral. If an immoral concept is part of his nature then God is not morally perfect or good. If you accept God's views of slavery is moral it is only by his command to you, ie DCT. If slavery is immoral than there is objective view of morality separate from God and his morals are subjective.

If oppression is involved then it is immoral.

The world slave doesn't mean that you should oppress the one working for you.

The domestic helper or maid will obey the boss orders,do this,do that, but if oppression is involved then that will be evil.

Maid and domestic servants can quit whenever they feel like it. Slavery is a restriction on one's freedom which is oppression. If a slave could quit whenever they wish there would be no slaves at all.

What does slavery have to do with the subject ?

Nothing, I was responding to a poor argument about morality.
 

Mycroft

Ministry of Serendipity
It would be but that is not what God does. He says you can acknowledge the truth and live with all the benefits of that truth, or you can deny it and suffer the loss of everything that believing a lie comes with. You can chose God and in the end that is what you get with everything that comes with it. Or you can deny God and loose everything that would have came with him. In the end you get exactly what you wanted. Truth or the lack of it. That is not oppressive. Hell is the absence of God and everything that costs. God is the author of life I believe Hell is the annihilation of that life he gave you. You go back to square one, non existence. It is not eternal torture. He gave you everything, you used it to deny him and so he takes it all back. Where is the injustice?

No, it's the same - in a roundabout way - he's essentially saying 'convert or die' and then using spooky language to make it look like it was your own fault.

Revelation 20:15 basically says if you're not written in the book of life - IE: if you don't put your faith in god, you get thrown into the lake of fire. That, to me, is no different than me holding you over a cliff and saying 'Do as I tell you to do, or i'll drop you!'
 
Last edited:

1robin

Christian/Baptist
No, it's the same - in a roundabout way - he's essentially saying 'convert or die' and then using spooky language to make it look like it was your own fault.

Revelation 20:15 basically says if you're not written in the book of life - IE: if you don't put your faith in god, you get thrown into the lake of fire. That, to me, is no different than me holding you over a cliff and saying 'Do as I tell you to do, or i'll drop you!'

Yes he is saying accept that water is good for thirst of be dehydrated. That is perfectly just. Where is the foul exactly? I think you are inventing the foul? Heck you should hate gravity. It does not even give you an option. Believe it or not you will obey it.

You reject God and like water you reject what God is the source of. Your talking a necessarily simple and perfectly just ide and using semantics to change it into something you think is reason for rejecting it. God is life if you reject him on what basis are you entitled to life? You did not create it, you do not own it, you were not given any guarantees apart from conditional ones and only then if God exists. What contract is being broken? BTW your going to certain to lose your life without God, with God you have a chance to retain it in it's full glory. Why is the former one just fine but latter the bad scenario?
 

FearGod

Freedom Of Mind
Maid and domestic servants can quit whenever they feel like it. Slavery is a restriction on one's freedom which is oppression. If a slave could quit whenever they wish there would be no slaves at all.

No they aren't free to quit anytime because there is a contract which can be for 2 years before he/she can go for another boss and again will be owned for 2 years and so on and so forth, don't you call it as slavery, it is slavery even if it will last for one day.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
No they aren't free to quit anytime because there is a contract which can be for 2 years before he/she can go for another boss and again will be owned for 2 years and so on and so forth, don't you call it as slavery, it is slavery even if it will last for one day.
I don't understand why you think an employer owns his/her employees. A contract is hardly the same thing as slavery as both parties willingly enter into a contract in good faith (that the other party will uphold their side of the bargain.) In slavery, the slave has no choice whatsoever.
 
Last edited:

FearGod

Freedom Of Mind
I don't understand why you think an employer own his/her employees. A contract is hardly the same thing as both parties willingly enter into a contract in good faith (that the other party will uphold their side of the bargain.) In slavery, the slave has no choice whatsoever.

And what the maid has to do other than serving and obeying his boss for the period that agreed upon in the contract..
 

Shad

Veteran Member
No they aren't free to quit anytime because there is a contract which can be for 2 years before he/she can go for another boss and again will be owned for 2 years and so on and so forth, don't you call it as slavery, it is slavery even if it will last for one day.

Not all maids or servants work on contacts. The worker can still quit freely although they may face financial or legal conquences. A friend of mine who signed a contract to lecture for 2 years just quit her job for one with more pay and a PA. She was not forced to work. She lost some pay and benefits she paid into. No modern legal system will force someone to work regardless of contract. The worker will either reimburse the employer, settle for a sum or face no legal action. Also a maid is not owned nor property. If a maid is legally obligated to work 8 hours a day the rest of the 16 hours are not bound by the employers whims or wishes. The employer has no authority to order her to do something outside of work, which is illegal nor against their religion. Anyone at anytime can break a legal contract. The employer and employee can both break the agreement

The fact that you think a maid is owned or property just shows you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Last edited:

FearGod

Freedom Of Mind
Not all maids or servants work on contacts. The worker can still quit freely although they may face financial or legal conquences. A friend of mine who signed a contract to lecture for 2 years just quit her job for one with more pay and a PA. She was not forced to work. She lost some pay and benefits she paid into. No modern legal system will force someone to work regardless of contract. The work will either reimburse the employer, settle for a sum or face no legal action. Also a maid is not own nor property. If a maid is legally obligated to work 8 hours a day the rest of the 16 hours are not bound by the employers whims or wishes.

The fact that you think a maid is owned or property just shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

May i ask you one question and to reply it with sincerity.

Do you think the maid is happy serving her boss and do you wish your daughter to work as a maid to serve her boss cleaning,cooking ..etc

Now when one person is forced to work such a job then do you think he is obligated to work or he/she can choose to be a jobless.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Was Islam spread by the sword?

No.

For example:

Spread of Islam in Senegal: [2]

Sufi Brotherhoods Today

In Senegal, 92% of Muslims belong to a Sufi brotherhoods, more than any Muslim population in the world.[8] The two largest orders are the Tijaniyyah and the Muridiyyah or Mourides, although the pan-Islamic Qadiriyyah and the smaller Layene brotherhood are also represented in parts of the country.

In creating a brotherhood, each founder often has the objective of uniting all Muslims. However, in practice, those within a brotherhood often emphasize the superiority of their brotherhood's path over others.[6] Mosques are created by specific brotherhoods, though individuals are free to attend whichever mosque they prefer.[6]

The Qadiriyyah is the smallest and oldest brotherhood in Senegal. It was introduced in the 18th and 19th century by missionaries from Mauritania and the Niger Bend.[5]

More Senegalese Sufis identify with the Tijaniyya order than any other. This order was brought to Senegal by El Hadj Umar Tall (1780-1840), who attempted to create an Islamic empire and organize all Muslims.[5][6] Though he largely failed during his lifetime, the order has since expanded greatly.[6] The Tijanis place a strong emphasis on Koranic education, and have created schools for girls as well.[5]

There are three dynasties of Tijanis, depending on the marabout a following owes most allegiance to: the Sy and Niasse in Wolof and Serer, and the Tall in Tukulor.[5] The Niasses are sometimes seen as radical and a threat to Senegalese national authority, but Tijanis have otherwise maintained strong relationships with the Senegalese government.[5]

The Mouride order is the most tightly organized and influential of Senegal's Sufi brotherhoods.[5] When first created, the Mourides proclaimed their superiority over the Tijaniyya, who in turn responded with violent repression of the Mourides.[6] The Mourides were founded by Cheikh Ahmadou Bamba (1850-1927) who strongly rejected the French colonial powers, and this position attracted many political leaders who lost their positions due to French occupation.[6]

Every year, thousands of Senegal make a pilgrimage to Touba for a religious festival held by the Mourides to honor Cheikh Bamba.[5] Many have wrote of the Mourides because a deviationist faction of this brotherhood has become radical and at times dangerous.[6] This faction does not represent a majority of Mourides and a Pew Report on Senegalese religion revealed that 92% of Senegalese do not associate the word "violent" with Muslims.[2]

The Layene are a small but growing Sufi brotherhood. They are often rejected by the larger Muslim population for beliefs some call un-Islamic, including their founder's assertion that he was a Prophet.[6]

Islam in Senegal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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

Regards
 

MD

qualiaphile
I'm sick of this, there is ample evidence that Islam was spread by the sword. There is ample evidence that Muslim armies committed genocide against non muslims. Your delusions will not work anymore no matter how much you try, there are no libraries to burn down anymore. Everything is digital, so the truth will always be there.

Be adults and own up to your religions barbaric history, the rest of us own up to ours.
 

Sabour

Well-Known Member
Let's just be logical please, look up the meaning of the word Islam. The first condition of being a muslim is submitting yourself, your heart and your everything to Allah. It has to be from the heart, how can such thing be spread by sword?

Look at the muslim numbers, first it is impossible to start with one man and begin spreading it by sword to reach these numbers. Second, if it was spread by sword and reached these number, why there are non muslims?

There are maybe around 1.6 m muslims in the world. Do you see them spreading Islam by sword ?!
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Let's just be logical please, look up the meaning of the word Islam. The first condition of being a muslim is submitting yourself, your heart and your everything to Allah. It has to be from the heart, how can such thing be spread by sword?

Look at the muslim numbers, first it is impossible to start with one man and begin spreading it by sword to reach these numbers. Second, if it was spread by sword and reached these number, why there are non muslims?

There are maybe around 1.6 m muslims in the world. Do you see them spreading Islam by sword ?!
You really don't see it, do you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top