FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Why many people convert to Islam while suffering in Europe and America ?
What makes a Jew to convert to Islam nowadays ?
-
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?
- Thread starter ZooGirl02
- Start date
- Status
Why many people convert to Islam while suffering in Europe and America ?
What makes a Jew to convert to Islam nowadays ?
Sees
Dragonslayer
The fact that there are peaceful conversions to Islam doesn't discount the fact there was force, oppression, persuasion, and of course simple baby making combined with indoctrination...used to grow and spread Islam.
Does anybody actually think it must be one or the other, black vs white?
Many millions of individual, peaceful conversions would not discount a history of forceful, violent persuasion.
The fact that not following or respecting Islam is dangerous in several places in modern times is enough for most people. The dominating, controlling, subjugating is seen as "spread by the sword"... regardless of any sword.
List any other traditions with recent theocracies/religious states or any type of religious policing. The fact that you gotta dig says enough.
Islam isn't all evil and dumb, Muslim followers of Islam are not all evil and dumb...it just lends itself towards certain, universally detestable things more readily than other major religions. Can argue about the theory all you want but not the materialization.
Who wants to guess under what banner the next backwards theocracy or religious punishment comes? Is it a smart bet that the next 5 or 10 are Islamic?
It makes Islam look worse to smart, inquisitive folks when proponents tap dance around these things.
Does anybody actually think it must be one or the other, black vs white?
Many millions of individual, peaceful conversions would not discount a history of forceful, violent persuasion.
The fact that not following or respecting Islam is dangerous in several places in modern times is enough for most people. The dominating, controlling, subjugating is seen as "spread by the sword"... regardless of any sword.
List any other traditions with recent theocracies/religious states or any type of religious policing. The fact that you gotta dig says enough.
Islam isn't all evil and dumb, Muslim followers of Islam are not all evil and dumb...it just lends itself towards certain, universally detestable things more readily than other major religions. Can argue about the theory all you want but not the materialization.
Who wants to guess under what banner the next backwards theocracy or religious punishment comes? Is it a smart bet that the next 5 or 10 are Islamic?
It makes Islam look worse to smart, inquisitive folks when proponents tap dance around these things.
Sabour
Well-Known Member
Sees.
You can't force anyone into Islam. First because that person would not be a muslim because it is not from the heart and Second because forcing people will not yield good results in the long term.
If I was forced into Islam my kids will grow hating Islam. Force gives no results.
Thinking of the idea it self doesn't seem right, one can directly see that this is not the case.
Even if it were the case. One should ask himself is this what Islam teaches?!
This question is the key here.
Everyone reads a different part of history, you say that you are right and I say that I am right. We can't go back in time and see who is right, but what we can do is making use of what we are seeing and what we have in our hands.
You can't force anyone into Islam. First because that person would not be a muslim because it is not from the heart and Second because forcing people will not yield good results in the long term.
If I was forced into Islam my kids will grow hating Islam. Force gives no results.
Thinking of the idea it self doesn't seem right, one can directly see that this is not the case.
Even if it were the case. One should ask himself is this what Islam teaches?!
This question is the key here.
Everyone reads a different part of history, you say that you are right and I say that I am right. We can't go back in time and see who is right, but what we can do is making use of what we are seeing and what we have in our hands.
Shad
Veteran Member
Many people are unhappy with their work, many are happy. If someone enjoys cooking then they could be happy as a maid in the kitchen. You are asking me to tell you another persons thoughts and feelings with I have any knowledge of this person nor contact. I can only relate to my feelings not another person. I can imagine both a happy maid and an unhappy maid. Other than that you are asking a question I can not answer. I would want my daughter to pick her own career. My happiness if irrelevant if she has the job she wants to have and is happy. Parents should be support of their children's choice and help them. They should not impose goals goals on others.
The person can choose to quit any time they want. They could find another job if they want. Depending on the nation university is an option or they could become unemployed. It is choice which is the key factor. A work can choose to quit and accept the consequences. A slave can not quit, they have no choice in the matter.
Last edited:
Shad
Veteran Member
The maid can quit or work, freedom of choice.
Sees
Dragonslayer
I agree you can't force true belief for any ideologies.
Do you agree what we are seeing in certain regions of the world today and in recent times reinforces the idea that under the banner of Islam there is more dominating, controlling, subjugating, etc. than under the banner of any other religions? Can it be separated from the politics and government structures that claim to be inspired and influenced by it?
Is Islam about personal, individual philosophical and spiritual beliefs and practices alone or is it an all-encompassing system that directs, touches, colors every part of society from top to bottom?
Ideologies don't need all people to quickly believe in them with a full heart. They just need to take control and have it be seen as advantageous, in your best interest, to get on board.
The meat of it:
I am an idolatrous, polytheistic pagan here in America, no outside forces or entities put any pressure on me to be otherwise. As an idolatrous, polytheistic Arabian in old Arabia, would I have felt any pressure/compulsion/force to convert to Islam in Muhammad's time? It's not just false forms or recent perversions that create a negative perception of Islam. Some things are part of the core character and are fundamental aspects.
If the people in power or vast numbers of local population believe in submitting to God, especially the distinct rules and guidance from Muhammad's messages from God, and that our society should reflect this submission...how free of pressure to get on board, get in line, am I?
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Sorry; I don't agree with you.
Sword has always been a hindrance in spreading of Islam; and Islam does not need it. It is the truthful Revealed religion from G-d with all the reasonable and rational arguments to convince a person.
There are other reasons for Zoroastrianism reducing to a little minority; perhaps the same reasons as are of Judaism.
Regards
gnostic
The Lost One
paarsurrey said:
They are minority, because they have been persecuted and oppressed for centuries, treated as 2nd citizens.
You are Ahmadi, or so you claimed. Do the larger Muslims sects, Sunni and Shiites, not persecute your group with violences? You have even started a topic about how other Muslims mistreated the Ahmadi.
Why do you think they wouldn't persecute people of other religions?
Some may convert out of their own free will, but others have been coerced and persecuted till submission.
To me, Islam is a religion of submission, and if you don't submit willingly, they will force them to submit.
In 630, Muhammad came into Mecca with army of 10,000 armed warriors, and they had surrendered because of that army.
Do you think Mecca would have surrendered, if Muhammad had come alone, or with only 200 unarmed companions that had originally join him in exile at Medina?
I would seriously doubted it.
mahmoud mrt
Member
Again the repeated tape
Some Westerns say that they have historical proofs that Islam’s history is violent against peaceful non-Muslims.
Muslims on board clarify to them that they are wrong
Those Westerns say that Muslims history books are fake and that they have the real Islamic History
Then they attack the prophet ignorantly by restructuring the events and hiding the rest of circumstances
So let’s take one example form this thread in the last post:
Again hiding the real events
, lets state them
1- At year 6 higri (628 western) the prophet traveled from Medina to Mecca with 1400 Muslims to perform short pilgrimage (Omra) peacefully.
2- Meccans’ Quraish prevented him, and thus the prophet offered to signed with them a treaty, it was called “Solh Alhydaibya”
3- This treaty Ended war and it’s duration was 10 years
4- In the first two years after this event because peace was established between Quraish pagans and Muslims, the other Arabian tribes started listening to what the Muslims say and thus started o join Islam peacefully.
5- After these 2 years the Muslims had been grown in number due to peaceful preaching for around 3 duplicates and the number was growing day after day.
6- At year 8 higri (630 western) Quraish (Mecca) Broke the treaty and killed about 30 Muslims inside and around the Kabaa.
7- The prophet knew this event and thus prepared an army of 10 thousands to shock the Quraish tribe so as not to make them have an encouragement to fight, the main goal was to enter Meccaa with no single drop of blood. And it Worked, when Quraish saw the huge army they surrendered with no fight. This is the Fact, the prophet used the number to save lives.
8- After they Surrendered he pardoned all of them without forcing a single person to join Islam
These are the facts, Known by any educated Arab or Muslim in the Muslim world.
Again the sword was used only in defense, either from the Other Countries attack on Muslims or by clearing the régimes who killed any Muslim preacher or anyone who wanted to join Islam.
Regards
Mahmoud
Some Westerns say that they have historical proofs that Islam’s history is violent against peaceful non-Muslims.
Muslims on board clarify to them that they are wrong
Those Westerns say that Muslims history books are fake and that they have the real Islamic History
Then they attack the prophet ignorantly by restructuring the events and hiding the rest of circumstances
So let’s take one example form this thread in the last post:
Again hiding the real events
, lets state them
1- At year 6 higri (628 western) the prophet traveled from Medina to Mecca with 1400 Muslims to perform short pilgrimage (Omra) peacefully.
2- Meccans’ Quraish prevented him, and thus the prophet offered to signed with them a treaty, it was called “Solh Alhydaibya”
3- This treaty Ended war and it’s duration was 10 years
4- In the first two years after this event because peace was established between Quraish pagans and Muslims, the other Arabian tribes started listening to what the Muslims say and thus started o join Islam peacefully.
5- After these 2 years the Muslims had been grown in number due to peaceful preaching for around 3 duplicates and the number was growing day after day.
6- At year 8 higri (630 western) Quraish (Mecca) Broke the treaty and killed about 30 Muslims inside and around the Kabaa.
7- The prophet knew this event and thus prepared an army of 10 thousands to shock the Quraish tribe so as not to make them have an encouragement to fight, the main goal was to enter Meccaa with no single drop of blood. And it Worked, when Quraish saw the huge army they surrendered with no fight. This is the Fact, the prophet used the number to save lives.
8- After they Surrendered he pardoned all of them without forcing a single person to join Islam
These are the facts, Known by any educated Arab or Muslim in the Muslim world.
Again the sword was used only in defense, either from the Other Countries attack on Muslims or by clearing the régimes who killed any Muslim preacher or anyone who wanted to join Islam.
Regards
Mahmoud
Last edited:
mahmoud mrt
Member
I have a thought that I want to share here
It’s that many non-Muslims try to generalize their opinion on the Muslims history by making slogans and picking or inventing events to justify these slogans
Islamic history is the history of Millions with numerous countryies and regimes, it contains huge detailed information
So due to this generalization by non-Muslims, Muslims reply with the Major Prevailing concepts that are drawn from the Holy Qur’an and the prophet’s life. And afterwards the majority of years of Muslim history
So lets take an example
When the Muslim armies entered Egypt the Kopts Christian Egyptians helped the Muslim army, because they were under persecution and oppression from the Roman Byzantine Christian empire which adopted a different Doctrine from the Egyptians
The first Muslim ruler on Egypt “Amr Ibn Alas” was beloved by all Egyptian, because he implemented Islam’s teachings in Economy, he did not order high taxes, the taxes were very little, and affordable.
Then After wards the second Muslim Ruler raised the taxes somehow, thus Egyptian did not like him.
The Christians were all allowed their prayers and churches, this was prevailing thought most rulers.
But at some times, some extreme rulers prevented them from building new churches, this was according to fake unauthenticated narrated rules attributed to the Prophet’s Companion “Omar ibn Alkhattab” who was the third Khalifat, these claimed rules are lies, Omar Ibn Alghattab did the opposite of them, as authenticated when he entered Jerusalem, he gave the Christians all rights. But these fakes was used and are still used by extreme groups like ISIS and Alqaeda, they are disgrace.
But economical wise the tax systems differed from ruler to ruler. Throughout history there were times when the rulers implemented Islam teaching in making the taxs very affordable, and there were other times where rulers raised the taxes on non-Muslims. They were doing so against Islam’s Teachings.
Why is that important, Because generalization always leads to wrong conclusion
I will give you another example
When the Mongols defeated the Islamic “Abbasia” Empire at 656 higri (1258 western) and thus occupied Persia and parts of Iraq. Afterwards Muslims scholars started talking to Mongols leaders and preaching Islam to them, When the Mongols leaders Embraced Islam, All the Mongos Population in Persia and Iraq Directly joined Islam, This is not what Islam teaches about joining, But due to the Mongols’ culture they always followed their ruler without thinking. This was the only time where non-Muslims were forced to be Muslims, this was due to the culture of the population.
And let’s not forget that the Jews in the middle ages were living peacefully among Muslims in Muslim countries running away from the Europe Christian persecution.
So to generalize is wrong, If you want to judge Islam then Judge it according to the Holy Quran and the prophet’s deeds,
But if you want to judge the Muslims history them you should study it regime by regime, culture by culture, date by date.
Regards
Mahmoud
It’s that many non-Muslims try to generalize their opinion on the Muslims history by making slogans and picking or inventing events to justify these slogans
Islamic history is the history of Millions with numerous countryies and regimes, it contains huge detailed information
So due to this generalization by non-Muslims, Muslims reply with the Major Prevailing concepts that are drawn from the Holy Qur’an and the prophet’s life. And afterwards the majority of years of Muslim history
So lets take an example
When the Muslim armies entered Egypt the Kopts Christian Egyptians helped the Muslim army, because they were under persecution and oppression from the Roman Byzantine Christian empire which adopted a different Doctrine from the Egyptians
The first Muslim ruler on Egypt “Amr Ibn Alas” was beloved by all Egyptian, because he implemented Islam’s teachings in Economy, he did not order high taxes, the taxes were very little, and affordable.
Then After wards the second Muslim Ruler raised the taxes somehow, thus Egyptian did not like him.
The Christians were all allowed their prayers and churches, this was prevailing thought most rulers.
But at some times, some extreme rulers prevented them from building new churches, this was according to fake unauthenticated narrated rules attributed to the Prophet’s Companion “Omar ibn Alkhattab” who was the third Khalifat, these claimed rules are lies, Omar Ibn Alghattab did the opposite of them, as authenticated when he entered Jerusalem, he gave the Christians all rights. But these fakes was used and are still used by extreme groups like ISIS and Alqaeda, they are disgrace.
But economical wise the tax systems differed from ruler to ruler. Throughout history there were times when the rulers implemented Islam teaching in making the taxs very affordable, and there were other times where rulers raised the taxes on non-Muslims. They were doing so against Islam’s Teachings.
Why is that important, Because generalization always leads to wrong conclusion
I will give you another example
When the Mongols defeated the Islamic “Abbasia” Empire at 656 higri (1258 western) and thus occupied Persia and parts of Iraq. Afterwards Muslims scholars started talking to Mongols leaders and preaching Islam to them, When the Mongols leaders Embraced Islam, All the Mongos Population in Persia and Iraq Directly joined Islam, This is not what Islam teaches about joining, But due to the Mongols’ culture they always followed their ruler without thinking. This was the only time where non-Muslims were forced to be Muslims, this was due to the culture of the population.
And let’s not forget that the Jews in the middle ages were living peacefully among Muslims in Muslim countries running away from the Europe Christian persecution.
So to generalize is wrong, If you want to judge Islam then Judge it according to the Holy Quran and the prophet’s deeds,
But if you want to judge the Muslims history them you should study it regime by regime, culture by culture, date by date.
Regards
Mahmoud
Last edited:
Shad
Veteran Member
Sorry but evenpaarsurrey own source from another thread shows forced conversions happened. I agree about generalizations but then I never suggested a black/white view to start.
https://archive.org/stream/preachingofislam00arno#page/262/mode/2up
https://archive.org/stream/preachingofislam00arno#page/262/mode/2up
Ignorance or a liar.Take your pick
Last edited:
MD
qualiaphile
Didn't Mohammed and his companions fight wars? How else would they spread the faith?
Didn't the Arab armies fight wars and bring Islam to Persia? Didn't the Muslim armies then bring it to India? Were not millions killed in these wars?
How can you live with yourselves and deny this history? Just look at ISIS and how they make sex slaves out of Yezidi women and kill the men, a religion who is innocent and has done nothing to them, but because their God is different. How can you call Islam a religion of peace when its history is filled with war? How can you call Islam a religion of peace when it suppresses and wipes out religious minorities? I mean really you would have to be quite stupid to believe that yourselves. It is a religion of law, discipline and war. It's a martial religion.
Accept that Islam is a religion born out of blood. It's the first path towards intellectual honesty and global peace. Otherwise groups like ISIS will continue to grow. And aside from all the crap the U.S. has done, accept that hatred of the kuffar is there as well. It's why Sunnis and Shi'as still kill each other today, because they see each other as kuffar.
Didn't the Arab armies fight wars and bring Islam to Persia? Didn't the Muslim armies then bring it to India? Were not millions killed in these wars?
How can you live with yourselves and deny this history? Just look at ISIS and how they make sex slaves out of Yezidi women and kill the men, a religion who is innocent and has done nothing to them, but because their God is different. How can you call Islam a religion of peace when its history is filled with war? How can you call Islam a religion of peace when it suppresses and wipes out religious minorities? I mean really you would have to be quite stupid to believe that yourselves. It is a religion of law, discipline and war. It's a martial religion.
Accept that Islam is a religion born out of blood. It's the first path towards intellectual honesty and global peace. Otherwise groups like ISIS will continue to grow. And aside from all the crap the U.S. has done, accept that hatred of the kuffar is there as well. It's why Sunnis and Shi'as still kill each other today, because they see each other as kuffar.
Last edited:
mahasn ebn sawresho
Well-Known Member
I agree with you and I refuse Neetm impose any belief or religion
Any religion compels people to follow the orders I am to him Aaamn
That's why I asked you not to put your religions in one box -
Look briefly constants in every religion
The ones I've known
Which is closest to your point of view
This inviting me to you
, Because I like you, I also refuse to any kind of coercion in my choices ideological
And this makes me remember the words of a poem Beta
The poet is Mutanabi
I do not want Grace Commission
The wine me good home
This poet refused to Paradise, which they present him as the price for accepting faith in what they believe
The poet was respectful of his mind and his will respect
Rejection of authoritarianism intellectual
The material on human
Is one of the elements of free thought
Because the topic is about Islam and the sword
I tell you that Islam is the intellectual shed
Without intellectual authoritarianism can not live Islam
Examples of Statistics
Our lives and our lives were with Muslims
It was a mutual respect between us
But it was in the limits of intellectual dialogue
Because it is not permissible for us to express any idea of ​​criticizing Islam
Even simple words were banned implicitly
When we sit down with Amuslimalmtdan
Tell him secretary
Even if it was in our mind that afraid of rejection by Nbouh
So there shed intellectual terrible inside Muslim communities
But in societies that have had the spirit of Christianity
Is this picture was bullying
The proof of my words, this
The theories that are critical of the church and Christianity
Common in the heart of those countries and at different ages
* Leave you answer
And also I want to give you a gift of the Holy
Verse, which is called the state of banditry
Verse says
Penalty who are fighting Allah and His Messenger
To cut their hands and legs of a dispute
Violation of the Prophet and fight and expansion in the interpretation of this verse
This means terrible judgment
To cut their hands and legs of a dispute
Is that studied the Bible says there is a provision to cut off the hand and foot if you Tkhalvin Christ
Or even hurting him
That's why I tell you not to put your Islam and Christianity in one basket in terms of intellectual and physical bullying
Mycroft
Ministry of Serendipity
So if you're thirsty and I deprive you of water unless you do as I command, tyhat's perfectly okay?
The message of god is clear: Believe or I shall have you killed.
mahasn ebn sawresho
Well-Known Member
I think our friend was not reading the Muslim Quranic verse
Is the state of the Koran
Do not say hatred or stabbed Please
The type of verse from my memory, and I said if it's not written in the Koran I'll go to the net and the oldest you
Penalty who are fighting Allah and His Messenger
To cut their hands and legs
And the other word I did not know a single word Termtha
It says Knhi hand cut right hand with the left foot
Or vice versa
This is the rule of Quranic
He was with the first day of Islam spread
Fi freedom of thought in this religion
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
No,not true
You lack knowledge on the Islamic history.
Arabs were very weak as they are today, there were 2 superpowers at that time,the Romans at the west and the Persians at the east,those 2 powers were controlling the world of those people at that era as the superpowers of today do, see how they can attack any weak country if they feel that it goes against their will.
Those 2 superpowers (The Romans & Persians) were oppressors and the Islamic state was going against their will.
The first war started between Muslims and the Romans when The prophet sent a missionary with a peaceful message to the Romans and they were occupying the Sham area at that time(Syria,Lebanon,Palestine& Jordan)
The missionary was killed while his mission was just to deliver the peaceful message from the prophet to the Roman king.
The prophet decided to fight the Romans for killing the missionary and the wars lasted after the death of prophet and ended with the freedom of those areas from the occupation and the oppression of the Roman empire.
[youtube]6wqf1wPEI94[/youtube]
khaled ibn walid - battle of Yarmuk - YouTube
The prophet amazingly foretold that at the end of time Muslims will fight against Jews and will liberate Jerusalem and the Quran moreover mentioned that the Jews at the end of time will be much stronger than Muslims and prophet added that a horrifying army of men will appear that won't show any mercy towards the disbelievers.
Now we can see the events starting to appear in the ME and the call for war and violence.
Wars never made to spread a religion, wars means killing and nothing else.
Last edited:
Mycroft
Ministry of Serendipity
*Quatermass puts on his scholarly hat, opens a series of books nad peers at you over half-moon spectacles, clearing his throat.*
In the book In the Shade of the Qu'ran by Sayyid Qut. Qutb describes Islam as politically and militarily expansionist from the very beginning, and in this he is right.
There's also paper from Princeton University called The Early Islamic Conquests which describes three large factors for the Islamic Crusades in the 7th Century. First, the ideological message of Islam itself triggered the Muslim ruling elite simply to follow Muhammad and his conquests; Islam had a divinely ordained mission to conquer in the name of Allah. The second factor is economic. The ruling elite "wanted to expand the political boundaries of the new state in order to secure even more fully than before the trans-Arab commerce they had plied for a century or more". The final factor is political control. The rulers wanted to maintain their top place in the new political hierarchy by having aggressive Arab tribes migrate into newly conquered territories.
So, was Islam ever spread by the sword?
Historical facts demonstrate that most of the conquered cities and regions accepted the last of the three options set forth in Sura 9:29 and enforced by the later Muslim Crusaders: fight and die, convert, or pay the jizya tax. They preferred to remain in their own religion and to pay the tax. However, people eventually converted. After all, Islamic lands are called such for a reason—or many reasons.
In Islam, Fundamentalism, and the Betrayal of Tradition, David Dakake cites Sura 2:256, and defines compulsion very narrowly. Jihad has been misrepresented as forcing Jews, Christians, and other peoples of the Middle East, Asia and Africa to convert to Islam "on pain of death." Qutb, also citing Sura 2:256, is even more categorical: "Never in its history did Islam compel a single human being to change his faith" This is absurd on its face, and it only demonstrates the tendentiousness of Islamic scholarship, which must be challenged at every turn here in the West.
This all leads to some odd logic, however:
(1) The only forced conversions are ones that occur with swords hanging directly over necks.
(2) No "hanging sword" conversions occur during a military conquest (because the swords of the Muslim Crusaders glimmer outside the city wall, not directly over necks).
(3)Therefore, no forced conversions occurred during a military conquest.
But history does not follow abstract logic. Did the vast majority of conquered peoples make such fine distinctions, even if a general amnesty were granted to People of the Book? Maybe a few diehards did, but the majority? Most people at this time did not know how to read or could barely read, so when they saw a Muslim army outside their gates, why would they not convert, even if eventually? To Ruthven’s and Nanji’s credit, they come up with other reasons to convert besides the sword, such as people’s fatigue with church squabbles, a few doctrinal similarities, simplicity of the conversion process, a desire to enter the ranks of the new ruling elite, and so on. But using the Quran to interpret later facts paints the history of Islam into a corner of an unrealistically high standard.
Indeed, militant Christianity does not live up to it. Jesus said that "if anyone would come after me" ... (Matt. 16:24). The word "if" shows that Jesus did not force anyone, and this is the implied starting point in the following logic. Would a Muslim apologist believe this about the Medieval European Crusades?
(4) If anyone follows Jesus Christ closely, then the follower never forces conversions.
(5)The Medieval Crusaders followed Jesus Christ closely.
(6)Therefore, the Medieval Crusaders never forced conversions.
This is the same unsound logic that the four Muslim apologists use in their explanation of the Muslim Crusades. But this is completely inaccurate and wrong. Rather, everyone agrees that Medieval Crusaders did not always act exemplarily or that they sometimes forced conversions. Hence, this misguided connection between Scripture and later historical facts does not hold together. Revelations or ideals should not run roughshod over later historical facts, as if all followers obey their Scriptures perfectly. Actually, modus tollens (denying the consequent or "then" clause) works better here.
(7)If anyone follows Jesus Christ closely, then the follower never forces conversions.
(8)But the Medieval Crusaders forced conversions.
(9)Therefore, they did not follow Jesus Christ closely.
The historical fact in the eighth premise leads to a better conclusion. This must be repeated: The Medieval Crusaders did not follow Jesus Christ closely when they slashed and burned or forced conversions. The same cannot be said for the Muslim Crusaders, for they in fact closely followed their founder when they slashed and burned and forced conversions.
To his credit, Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), late Medieval statesman, jurist, historian, and scholar, has enough integrity and candor to balance out these four Muslim apologists, writing a history that is still admired by historians today. He states the obvious: 'In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. ' In his book The Muqaddimah: an Introduction to History. He goes on to say: 'The first [Muslim] victory over them and the European Christians [in the Maghrib] was of no avail. They continued to rebel and apostatized time after time. The Muslims massacred many of them. After the Muslim religion had been established among them, they went on revolting and seceding, and they adopted dissident religious opinions many times. They remained disobedient and unmanageable .... Therefore, it has taken the Arabs a long time to establish their dynasty in the Maghrib.'
Using wisdom that is based on observation, the Medieval Muslim scholar acknowledges that slaughter occurred not only to establish a worldly dynasty, but also to force people to convert to the true religion by the sword, even though some of the inhabitants in the Maghrib were People of the Book, European Christians. If they did not convert, then 'the Muslims massacred many of them,' he says, matter-of-factly. This excerpt also shows that many did not want to become Muslims, or when they gave up and became Muslims, they 'apostatized [and] ... adopted dissident religious opinions ... and remained disobedient.' Therefore, freedom of religion was not the purpose of Islam, as it was not in Muhammad’s days, when he conquered Mecca and the Arabian Peninsula.
So in conclusion: Muslims who slashed and burned and forced conversions did not wander off from the origins of Islam, but followed it closely. It is a plain and unpleasant historical fact that in the ten years that Muhammad lived in Medina (622-632), he either sent out or went out on seventy-four raids, expeditions, or full-scale wars, which range from small assination hit squads to the Tabuk Crusade, described above. Sometimes the expeditions did not result in violence, but a Muslim army always lurked in the background. Muhammad could exact a terrible vengeance on an individual or tribe that double-crossed him. These ten years did not know long stretches of peace.
In the book In the Shade of the Qu'ran by Sayyid Qut. Qutb describes Islam as politically and militarily expansionist from the very beginning, and in this he is right.
There's also paper from Princeton University called The Early Islamic Conquests which describes three large factors for the Islamic Crusades in the 7th Century. First, the ideological message of Islam itself triggered the Muslim ruling elite simply to follow Muhammad and his conquests; Islam had a divinely ordained mission to conquer in the name of Allah. The second factor is economic. The ruling elite "wanted to expand the political boundaries of the new state in order to secure even more fully than before the trans-Arab commerce they had plied for a century or more". The final factor is political control. The rulers wanted to maintain their top place in the new political hierarchy by having aggressive Arab tribes migrate into newly conquered territories.
So, was Islam ever spread by the sword?
Historical facts demonstrate that most of the conquered cities and regions accepted the last of the three options set forth in Sura 9:29 and enforced by the later Muslim Crusaders: fight and die, convert, or pay the jizya tax. They preferred to remain in their own religion and to pay the tax. However, people eventually converted. After all, Islamic lands are called such for a reason—or many reasons.
In Islam, Fundamentalism, and the Betrayal of Tradition, David Dakake cites Sura 2:256, and defines compulsion very narrowly. Jihad has been misrepresented as forcing Jews, Christians, and other peoples of the Middle East, Asia and Africa to convert to Islam "on pain of death." Qutb, also citing Sura 2:256, is even more categorical: "Never in its history did Islam compel a single human being to change his faith" This is absurd on its face, and it only demonstrates the tendentiousness of Islamic scholarship, which must be challenged at every turn here in the West.
This all leads to some odd logic, however:
(1) The only forced conversions are ones that occur with swords hanging directly over necks.
(2) No "hanging sword" conversions occur during a military conquest (because the swords of the Muslim Crusaders glimmer outside the city wall, not directly over necks).
(3)Therefore, no forced conversions occurred during a military conquest.
But history does not follow abstract logic. Did the vast majority of conquered peoples make such fine distinctions, even if a general amnesty were granted to People of the Book? Maybe a few diehards did, but the majority? Most people at this time did not know how to read or could barely read, so when they saw a Muslim army outside their gates, why would they not convert, even if eventually? To Ruthven’s and Nanji’s credit, they come up with other reasons to convert besides the sword, such as people’s fatigue with church squabbles, a few doctrinal similarities, simplicity of the conversion process, a desire to enter the ranks of the new ruling elite, and so on. But using the Quran to interpret later facts paints the history of Islam into a corner of an unrealistically high standard.
Indeed, militant Christianity does not live up to it. Jesus said that "if anyone would come after me" ... (Matt. 16:24). The word "if" shows that Jesus did not force anyone, and this is the implied starting point in the following logic. Would a Muslim apologist believe this about the Medieval European Crusades?
(4) If anyone follows Jesus Christ closely, then the follower never forces conversions.
(5)The Medieval Crusaders followed Jesus Christ closely.
(6)Therefore, the Medieval Crusaders never forced conversions.
This is the same unsound logic that the four Muslim apologists use in their explanation of the Muslim Crusades. But this is completely inaccurate and wrong. Rather, everyone agrees that Medieval Crusaders did not always act exemplarily or that they sometimes forced conversions. Hence, this misguided connection between Scripture and later historical facts does not hold together. Revelations or ideals should not run roughshod over later historical facts, as if all followers obey their Scriptures perfectly. Actually, modus tollens (denying the consequent or "then" clause) works better here.
(7)If anyone follows Jesus Christ closely, then the follower never forces conversions.
(8)But the Medieval Crusaders forced conversions.
(9)Therefore, they did not follow Jesus Christ closely.
The historical fact in the eighth premise leads to a better conclusion. This must be repeated: The Medieval Crusaders did not follow Jesus Christ closely when they slashed and burned or forced conversions. The same cannot be said for the Muslim Crusaders, for they in fact closely followed their founder when they slashed and burned and forced conversions.
To his credit, Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), late Medieval statesman, jurist, historian, and scholar, has enough integrity and candor to balance out these four Muslim apologists, writing a history that is still admired by historians today. He states the obvious: 'In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. ' In his book The Muqaddimah: an Introduction to History. He goes on to say: 'The first [Muslim] victory over them and the European Christians [in the Maghrib] was of no avail. They continued to rebel and apostatized time after time. The Muslims massacred many of them. After the Muslim religion had been established among them, they went on revolting and seceding, and they adopted dissident religious opinions many times. They remained disobedient and unmanageable .... Therefore, it has taken the Arabs a long time to establish their dynasty in the Maghrib.'
Using wisdom that is based on observation, the Medieval Muslim scholar acknowledges that slaughter occurred not only to establish a worldly dynasty, but also to force people to convert to the true religion by the sword, even though some of the inhabitants in the Maghrib were People of the Book, European Christians. If they did not convert, then 'the Muslims massacred many of them,' he says, matter-of-factly. This excerpt also shows that many did not want to become Muslims, or when they gave up and became Muslims, they 'apostatized [and] ... adopted dissident religious opinions ... and remained disobedient.' Therefore, freedom of religion was not the purpose of Islam, as it was not in Muhammad’s days, when he conquered Mecca and the Arabian Peninsula.
So in conclusion: Muslims who slashed and burned and forced conversions did not wander off from the origins of Islam, but followed it closely. It is a plain and unpleasant historical fact that in the ten years that Muhammad lived in Medina (622-632), he either sent out or went out on seventy-four raids, expeditions, or full-scale wars, which range from small assination hit squads to the Tabuk Crusade, described above. Sometimes the expeditions did not result in violence, but a Muslim army always lurked in the background. Muhammad could exact a terrible vengeance on an individual or tribe that double-crossed him. These ten years did not know long stretches of peace.
Last edited:
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Yes, Ahmadis are being persecuted by other Muslim sects; but that has not stopped our progress. Despite opposition by other Muslims and non-Muslims sects/religions we have always spread peacefully with reasonable and rational arguments and with peaceful dialogue. This way Ahmadiyya has spread into 206 countries of the world in a span of just 100+ years.
As I said Islam does not need sword to spread; it never needed it.
Instead of lamenting on the past; the Zoroastrians have to analyse their own policies as to why they are becoming extinct in the world day by day.
The same is the case of Judaism.
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Was Islam spread by the sword?
No.
For example:
Spread of Islam in Seychelles:
Islam in the Indian Ocean was established by Muslim sea merchants well before the European discovery of Seychelles.[1]However, unlike in other island states including the Comoros and Maldives, there were no permanent inhabitants in Seychelles until the French settlement in 1770. Today, the Muslim population of the islands is reported to be only 1.1%, roughly 900 people.[2]
Many of its island neighbors in the southern Indian Ocean, including Comoros, the Maldives andZanzibar, have a much larger Muslim influence because of their colonization by Muslims, before European colonization.Mauritius also has a much higher Muslim population due to the importation of labour from British India on a scale not seen in Seychelles.
The government of Seychelles allows 15 minutes of religious broadcasting every Friday for the Muslim community.
Islam in Seychelles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't see any sword in spread of Islam in Seychelles.
Regards
No.
For example:
Spread of Islam in Seychelles:
Islam in the Indian Ocean was established by Muslim sea merchants well before the European discovery of Seychelles.[1]However, unlike in other island states including the Comoros and Maldives, there were no permanent inhabitants in Seychelles until the French settlement in 1770. Today, the Muslim population of the islands is reported to be only 1.1%, roughly 900 people.[2]
Many of its island neighbors in the southern Indian Ocean, including Comoros, the Maldives andZanzibar, have a much larger Muslim influence because of their colonization by Muslims, before European colonization.Mauritius also has a much higher Muslim population due to the importation of labour from British India on a scale not seen in Seychelles.
The government of Seychelles allows 15 minutes of religious broadcasting every Friday for the Muslim community.
Islam in Seychelles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't see any sword in spread of Islam in Seychelles.
Regards
This is not true and the truth isn't that hard to find these days.
ISIS is going back to the old ways. The difference is that violent Muslims can't keep it a secret or pretend differently as well as they could 1000 years ago.
Powerful religionists have long been able to twist the truth to their liking, but that doesn't work now in the "Information Age".
Tom
- Status