Was Islam spread by the sword?

[Shad]

No,not true


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 emissary was sent to client tribe of Byzantium not the Emperor. The Ghassanids were the ones which killed the emissary. Now this provides a very weak casus belli against this tribe. To be honest records of this event and the following battle of Mu'tah are so over the top that it is hard to take seriously. Regardless this was no casus belli for invasion of the Empire

 

[paarsurrey]

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

It is a political group; not founded by Muhammad or on his teachings.

Regards

 

[columbus]

It is a political group; not founded by Muhammad or on his teachings.

Regards

They seem to disagree about that. Since both of you claim to know what Allah means in the Quran and I know you will dissemble I see no reason to think you are more Islamic than ISIS.

Tom

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

They seem to disagree about that. Since both of you claim to know what Allah means in the Quran and I know you will dissemble I see no reason to think you are more Islamic than ISIS.

Tom

It seems ankmtathr in a book called the hidden forces and human
And it speaks of the solar and Lunar religion religion
This writer puts Islam organized religions Lunar
This lano'mn the
We say that religion is the reason and revelation
Which was ultimately with Abraham
Who was able to identify the creator of her message to the world
I hope that I am wrong in the analysis of sources of information about religion

 

[paarsurrey]

The emissary was sent to client tribe of Byzantium not the Emperor. The Ghassanids were the ones which killed the emissary. Now this provides a very weak casus belli against this tribe. To be honest records of this event and the following battle of Mu'tah are so over the top that it is hard to take seriously. Regardless this was no casus belli for invasion of the Empire

I think you are wrong here; Muhammad’s letter did reach Heraclius, the Roman Emperor while he was in Syria on a tour of the Empire:

PROPHET MUHAMMAD’S LETTERS TO VARIOUS KINGS

After settling down in Medina on return from Hudaibiya, the Prophet instituted another plan for the spread of his Message. When he mentioned this to the Companions, some of them who were acquainted with the customs and forms observed in the courts of kings told the Prophet that kings did not entertain letters which did not bear the seals of the senders.

Accordingly the Prophet had a seal made on which were engraved the words, Muhammad Rasul Allah.
Out of reverence, Allah was put at the top, beneath it Rasul and lastly Muhammad.

In Muharram 628, envoys went to different capitals, each with a letter from the Prophet, inviting the rulers to accept Islam. Envoys went to Heraclius, the Roman Emperor, the Kings of Iran, Egypt (the King of Egypt was then a vassal of the Kaiser) and Abyssinia. They went to other kings and rulers also. The letter addressed to the Kaiser was taken by Dihya Kalbi who was instructed to call first on the Governor of Busra. When Dihya saw the Governor, the great Kaiser himself was in Syria on a tour of the Empire. The Governor readily passed Dihya on to the Kaiser.


Page-246-250
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Introduction-Study-Holy-Quran.pdf

Please read its detail on pages 246-250 from the above link; and correct yourself.

Regards

 

[Shad]

I think you are wrong here; Muhammad’s letter did reach Heraclius, the Roman Emperor while he was in Syria on a tour of the Empire:

PROPHET MUHAMMAD’S LETTERS TO VARIOUS KINGS

After settling down in Medina on return from Hudaibiya, the Prophet instituted another plan for the spread of his Message. When he mentioned this to the Companions, some of them who were acquainted with the customs and forms observed in the courts of kings told the Prophet that kings did not entertain letters which did not bear the seals of the senders.

Accordingly the Prophet had a seal made on which were engraved the words, Muhammad Rasul Allah.
Out of reverence, Allah was put at the top, beneath it Rasul and lastly Muhammad.

In Muharram 628, envoys went to different capitals, each with a letter from the Prophet, inviting the rulers to accept Islam. Envoys went to Heraclius, the Roman Emperor, the Kings of Iran, Egypt (the King of Egypt was then a vassal of the Kaiser) and Abyssinia. They went to other kings and rulers also. The letter addressed to the Kaiser was taken by Dihya Kalbi who was instructed to call first on the Governor of Busra. When Dihya saw the Governor, the great Kaiser himself was in Syria on a tour of the Empire. The Governor readily passed Dihya on to the Kaiser.


Page-246-250
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Introduction-Study-Holy-Quran.pdf

Please read its detail on pages 246-250 from the above link; and correct yourself.

Regards

The cause was the execution of an emissary by the tribe I said. It is from Islamic sources. You can read this in "A Restatement of the History of Islam and Muslims, The Battle of Mootah" and "The Sealed Nectar". The former is on the same website you linked. We are taking about the start of the Arab-Byzantium wars. Beside if you want to take your point of view then there is no casus belli and it was a war of aggression.

No,not true


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 emissary was sent to client tribe of Byzantium not the Emperor. The Ghassanids were the ones which killed the emissary. Now this provides a very weak casus belli against this tribe. To be honest records of this event and the following battle of Mu'tah are so over the top that it is hard to take seriously. Regardless this was no casus belli for invasion of the Empire

Spend more time reading less time of over the top reactionary tendencies. I am talking about a certain emissary, the one killed, not all emissaries. Keep your comments at least within context of those you are replying to.

 

[England my lionheart]

If Islam was spread by the sword.

How did it start with one man and it is what it is today?

If you want to ignore that and say it was managed in some way, than why didn't the muslims wipe out all non muslims when they had the chance?

I think warbooty which included slaves played a big part,he made a good start by raiding caravans.


What exactly is Islam today?,which is the true Islam,ISIS believe themselves to be followers of true Islam.

 

[gnostic]

=paarsurreyI think you are wrong here; Muhammad’s letter did reach Heraclius, the Roman Emperor while he was in Syria on a tour of the Empire:

PROPHET MUHAMMAD’S LETTERS TO VARIOUS KINGS

After settling down in Medina on return from Hudaibiya, the Prophet instituted another plan for the spread of his Message. When he mentioned this to the Companions, some of them who were acquainted with the customs and forms observed in the courts of kings told the Prophet that kings did not entertain letters which did not bear the seals of the senders.

Accordingly the Prophet had a seal made on which were engraved the words, Muhammad Rasul Allah.
Out of reverence, Allah was put at the top, beneath it Rasul and lastly Muhammad.

In Muharram 628, envoys went to different capitals, each with a letter from the Prophet, inviting the rulers to accept Islam. Envoys went to Heraclius, the Roman Emperor, the Kings of Iran, Egypt (the King of Egypt was then a vassal of the Kaiser) and Abyssinia. They went to other kings and rulers also. The letter addressed to the Kaiser was taken by Dihya Kalbi who was instructed to call first on the Governor of Busra. When Dihya saw the Governor, the great Kaiser himself was in Syria on a tour of the Empire. The Governor readily passed Dihya on to the Kaiser.

The only sources that say Heraclius have received and read Muhammad's missive come from Muslim sources. But no Byzantine sources can confirm what the Muslim source's claim, so it is a possibility that Heraclius have never seen letter.

So we only Muslim historians saying one thing, but complete silence from Byzantine historians, leads me to believe that is nothing more than Muslim propaganda.

I would need both Muslim and Byzantine sources in agreement with each other about correspondents with each other, rather just a Muslim's version of the event.

A Muslim messenger that was killed, was killed by the Ghassanids, not by the Byzantines, let alone on Heraclius' order. I don't think Heraclius even knew of the messenger's death.

The Ghassanids were Arabs who migrated from Yemen to territory east of Byzantine Syria, in which they became client state of the Byzantine empire.

As a client state, the Byzantine army was obligated to defend the Ghassanids from attack from outsiders. The Ghassanids have fought side-by-side with the Byzantines against the Persians in several battles, so they were allies, which is another reason for the Byzantine defending the Ghassanids against Muslims.

And it was the Muslim who attack Byzantine territory first, in 629. Attacking the Ghassanids is a sign of aggression from Muhammad and Muslims, and Byzantines had little choice but to defend them against Muslims.

As I understand there are 2 versions to the battle of Mu'tah, which conflicted with what really happened out there.

But I can see the telltale sign of Muslim exaggerating their version (hence propaganda). Like Heraclius himself gathering a large army to reinforce the Byzantine army, but the fact of the matter, is that that Heraclius was never personally involved in the battle, nor could Heraclius' reinforcement possibly arrived in time for battle.

Such exaggeration make all Muslim accounts of the event of 629 to be exaggerated as well. The Muslim historians have penchant for propaganda.

 

[paarsurrey]

Was Islam spread by the sword?

No.

For example:

Spread of Islam in Sierra Leone:

Sierra Leone last conducted a census in 2009 and estimates there are 4,059,000 Muslims in Sierra Leone . This suggests 71.3% of the country's total population is Muslim.[1] There are 18 ethnic groups in the country, the two largest being the Temneand Mende. The Temnes are the main tribe in the north and are predominantly Muslim. At least nine of Sierra Leone's sixteen ethnic groups are predominantly Muslim.

The vast majority of Sierra Leonean Muslims are Malikite Sunni; while small minorities are Shia and Ahmadiyya. Though small in numbers, the Ahmadiyya has one of the largest Islamic institutions across country, including 186 primary and 55 secondary schools.[2]

In the early 18th century Fulani and Mande-speaking tribesmen from the Fouta Djallon region of present-day Guinea converted many Temne of northern Sierra Leone to Islam. During the period of British colonization, attempts to spread Christianity were mostly ineffective.

Islam continued to spread after independence in 1961; in 1960 the Muslim population was 35 percent and grew to 60 percent by 2000, and then to 71% in 2008. It is difficult for people from Sierra Leone to travel to Mecca for the Hajj, the fifth pillar of Islam, due to the distance between the two places and the cost of travel being beyond the means of most Sierra Leoneans.

The recent civil war in Sierra Leone was secular in nature featuring members of Christian, Muslim, and Tribal faiths fighting on both sides of the conflict.
Islam in Sierra Leone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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

Regard

 

[FearGod]

The only sources that say Heraclius have received and read Muhammad's missive come from Muslim sources. But no Byzantine sources can confirm what the Muslim source's claim, so it is a possibility that Heraclius have never seen letter.

So we only Muslim historians saying one thing, but complete silence from Byzantine historians, leads me to believe that is nothing more than Muslim propaganda.

I would need both Muslim and Byzantine sources in agreement with each other about correspondents with each other, rather just a Muslim's version of the event.

A Muslim messenger that was killed, was killed by the Ghassanids, not by the Byzantines, let alone on Heraclius' order. I don't think Heraclius even knew of the messenger's death.

The Ghassanids were Arabs who migrated from Yemen to territory east of Byzantine Syria, in which they became client state of the Byzantine empire.

As a client state, the Byzantine army was obligated to defend the Ghassanids from attack from outsiders. The Ghassanids have fought side-by-side with the Byzantines against the Persians in several battles, so they were allies, which is another reason for the Byzantine defending the Ghassanids against Muslims.

And it was the Muslim who attack Byzantine territory first, in 629. Attacking the Ghassanids is a sign of aggression from Muhammad and Muslims, and Byzantines had little choice but to defend them against Muslims.

As I understand there are 2 versions to the battle of Mu'tah, which conflicted with what really happened out there.

But I can see the telltale sign of Muslim exaggerating their version (hence propaganda). Like Heraclius himself gathering a large army to reinforce the Byzantine army, but the fact of the matter, is that that Heraclius was never personally involved in the battle, nor could Heraclius' reinforcement possibly arrived in time for battle.

Such exaggeration make all Muslim accounts of the event of 629 to be exaggerated as well. The Muslim historians have penchant for propaganda.

The important point here that the Roman empire ended and expelled from the area, that was a great job done by the Muslims.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

FearGod wrote
The important point here that the Roman empire ended and expelled from the area, that was a great job done by the Muslims.
The Romans came to the East in the occupation
And it also
But the Roman State did not finish
The rest of that State history
Glories
And also their laws
And civilization
Stolen from Arabs and Muslims
Today the same thing are you doing
You were sleeping in the arms of the Ottomans
West: gunpowder and waabndkih and the car and the pilot
You wake up
Now astmkentm
Years later, are you going to do the same thing

 

[Chev Chelios]

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.

I think it is you who lacks integrity for what you wrote demonstrates historical revision and a complete subversion of the facts. Facts which, funnily enough come from a historical narrative of these battles which has been shaped by Islamic historical records – no concrete references to my knowledge have ever been found from the Byzantines giving a very biased account indeed. However, despite the historical account being a wholly Islamic interpretation, so its historical accuracy should be rightly viewed with scepticism, we can still see it contradicts what you are saying if viewed unbiasedly.

This battle is used as an excuse by Moslems to explain verse 9:29 of the Koran - saying that the Romans killed the personal ambassador of Muhammad who'd been sent to deliver a message to the leader of Byzantine via the Byzantine governor of Busra. Of course, we know that the Byzantines didn't kill him - it was the Ghassanids who may have been Byzantine allies at times but were not part of their empire.

The message sent was (almost certainly) one Muhammad had sent many times before

“In the name of Allah …from Muhammad slave of Allah to Hercules …I invite you to embrace Islam so that you may live in security…..if you come within the fold of Islam Allah will give you twice the reward…but in case you turn your back on it the burden of sins of all your people will fall on your shoulders”.

We see clearly then that Muhammad was giving the Byzantines an ultimatum - convert to Islam or pay the price. HE was the one being provocative and when we consider the fact the burgeoning Islamic empire had just conquered Arabia – the Byzantines and Ghassanids will have been well aware of the nature of the threat now at their borders of their lands and civilisation. They were in danger and they knew it.

It is baffling that Moslems such as yourself seem tunable to really appreciate the fact that some people may not be entirely happy about being administered a threat. In any case, this ambassador of Islam and his envoy of 10-15 were killed for this completely unprovoked threat to the Byzantines and of we go with a full scale Moslem Arab attack. So, we see then that the argument of Moslems that 9:29 is defensive is pure BS and I do not see how it can be entertained with any rational logic.

 

[paarsurrey]

I think it is you who lacks integrity for what you wrote demonstrates historical revision and a complete subversion of the facts. Facts which, funnily enough come from a historical narrative of these battles which has been shaped by Islamic historical records – no concrete references to my knowledge have ever been found from the Byzantines giving a very biased account indeed. However, despite the historical account being a wholly Islamic interpretation, so its historical accuracy should be rightly viewed with scepticism, we can still see it contradicts what you are saying if viewed unbiasedly.

This battle is used as an excuse by Moslems to explain verse 9:29 of the Koran - saying that the Romans killed the personal ambassador of Muhammad who'd been sent to deliver a message to the leader of Byzantine via the Byzantine governor of Busra. Of course, we know that the Byzantines didn't kill him - it was the Ghassanids who may have been Byzantine allies at times but were not part of their empire.

The message sent was (almost certainly) one Muhammad had sent many times before

“In the name of Allah …from Muhammad slave of Allah to Hercules …I invite you to embrace Islam so that you may live in security…..if you come within the fold of Islam Allah will give you twice the reward…but in case you turn your back on it the burden of sins of all your people will fall on your shoulders”.

We see clearly then that Muhammad was giving the Byzantines an ultimatum - convert to Islam or pay the price. HE was the one being provocative and when we consider the fact the burgeoning Islamic empire had just conquered Arabia – the Byzantines and Ghassanids will have been well aware of the nature of the threat now at their borders of their lands and civilisation. They were in danger and they knew it.

It is baffling that Moslems such as yourself seem tunable to really appreciate the fact that some people may not be entirely happy about being administered a threat. In any case, this ambassador of Islam and his envoy of 10-15 were killed for this completely unprovoked threat to the Byzantines and of we go with a full scale Moslem Arab attack. So, we see then that the argument of Moslems that 9:29 is defensive is pure BS and I do not see how it can be entertained with any rational logic.

So it is unreliable if it is from Islamic Records and would only be reliable if it belongs to the Christian Records?!

What a concept of unbiased source of history you have described?!

Regards

 

[Shad]

The important point here that the Roman empire ended and expelled from the area, that was a great job done by the Muslims.

The ends justify the means then? If there were was no casus belli it was a war of aggressive expansion. So either the defense only clause is moot or you are required to accept other acts in which the ends justify the means.

 

[Chev Chelios]

So it is unreliable if it is from Islamic Records and would only be reliable if it belongs to the Christian Records?!

What a concept of unbiased source of history you have described?!

Regards

Well it would certainly be a biased concept if that is what I said, but the problem is I didn't did I. So now I will ask you to point out where I said that if we had a Byzantine account then that account would be reliable over that of the Islamic one? No. If we had a Byzantine account then we at least would have a more balanced narrative of the story which allows us to be more informed and able to build up a bigger picture around these events – I’d then leave it to historians to pick up the challenge of establishing which was the more likely (if they conflicted).

I never cease to be amazed at the sheer deception Moslems will evoke in order to defend their faith. Why do you never endingly and so un-ashamedly show such dishonesty and lies? The same goes for your ridiculous premise that because there are examples of Islam being spread peacefully automatically means you have provided definitive evidence that it has always been spread peacefully. These unethical traits make you look foolish whilst also clearly demonstrating that you are completely incapable of rebutting the point I had just made.

This is a debate forum so take on what I say and not what I didn’t say.

 

[outhouse]

So it is unreliable if it is from Islamic Records and would only be reliable if it belongs to the Christian Records?!

Islam avoids credible history as pseudo history is required to be a member.


Claim what you like but that is a fact.

 

[outhouse]

Why do you never endingly and so un-ashamedly show such dishonesty and lies?

A requirement of his sect.


He follows belief that a prophet from 200 years ago has more credible mytology

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Well it would certainly be a biased concept if that is what I said, but the problem is I didn't did I. So now I will ask you to point out where I said that if we had a Byzantine account then that account would be reliable over that of the Islamic one? No. If we had a Byzantine account then we at least would have a more balanced narrative of the story which allows us to be more informed and able to build up a bigger picture around these events – I’d then leave it to historians to pick up the challenge of establishing which was the more likely (if they conflicted).

I never cease to be amazed at the sheer deception Moslems will evoke in order to defend their faith. Why do you never endingly and so un-ashamedly show such dishonesty and lies? The same goes for your ridiculous premise that because there are examples of Islam being spread peacefully automatically means you have provided definitive evidence that it has always been spread peacefully. These unethical traits make you look foolish whilst also clearly demonstrating that you are completely incapable of rebutting the point I had just made.

This is a debate forum so take on what I say and not what I didn’t say.

When discussing Muslim you are discussing with recorder
I first heard that Roman killed Islamic Envoy
I think this is a big lie in history
Because Islamic Envoy reached Rome
Yes sent messages but got through from hand to hand
I believe
The Romans did not put in gsabathm
This emerging colonial power in Makkah
And Medina
This is true
I've appeared or ابتداءت in Medina the new colonial power
Is Islamic colonialism
The Islamic or Arab
The three neighboring countries colonized
Is Syria, Iraq and Egypt
The great forgery written history and especially of Muslims
And Muhammad lived his time
And enjoy the idea of expansion and wrapped in the signs of God
And the verses of the Holy marriage and booty
This was a new element in the fighting
Because the Romans
They were at the beginning of their conversion to Christianity
They say I fight
I think
That defeatism in Christian thought is one of the reasons for the spread of Islam
Yes
When I fight your enemy and when it says love
The evil spreads
So yes Islam spread
The others give him love, but Islam gave them the sword
Today these words lesson to Western thought
Which is great
And also sometimes can be detonated with a PIN as Baron air
Yes
Western thought with tolerance
And morals
And humanity
But this gives the ideas of Islam to permeate inside and blow from the inside
I invite to a new Christian thought in the face of Islamic thought
The devil not be broken to give out roses
Devil escapes with slap of baby shoes

 

[Sabour]

What exactly is Islam today?,which is the true Islam,ISIS believe themselves to be followers of true Islam.

Well where I live ISIS are killing muslims.

I am certain they don't believe they are followers of true Islam even if they claim so.

The true Islam can be found with heart and total submission to Allah.

Those who do, Allah will show them the path.

"It is Allah's blessing upon us that we love him. Greater than this is Allah's love for us. We should strive to be more worthy of Allah's love.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) related to us that Allah says: "The most beloved things with which My servant draws nearer to Me is what I have enjoined upon him; and My servant keeps drawing closer to Me through performing voluntary acts until I love him. And when I love him, I become his sense of hearing with which he hears, his sense of sight with which he sees, his hand with which he grips, and his leg with which he walks. "

I probably have said this but if you're looking for true Islam I suggest the Islam reverts who saw the truth in Islam. A couple of names I would suggest hearing to are Yusuf Estes and Joshua Evans.

 

[Sabour]

They seem to disagree about that. Since both of you claim to know what Allah means in the Quran and I know you will dissemble I see no reason to think you are more Islamic than ISIS.

Tom

Friend Tom,

There are many people who came forward and provide their opinions and take actions and say it is backed up by Quraan and by the prophet's teaching. Taken out of context, we can make anything say anything.

Anyone doing something because of Islam has to provide his source and provide explanation backed up from the Quraan or the prophet's teaching to prove what he is doing on condition that this doesn't contradict other teachings too for Islam and Quraan are taken as a whole and not part of part. Islam is a way of life and something we can cherry pick to serve our biases.

I don't judge people, I judge actions for I don't know who would repent and I don't know who will sin. From what I know, what ISIS is doing is 100% not Islamic and the Quraan is 100 % against it.

If I were to form an opinion about ISIS I would say that it is formed by non muslims just to make Islam look bad. This happens all the time and it is we muslims who fuel up and help them in making Islam look bad by our responses. We have reached this point because of our lack of understanding about Islam.

For example, those Danemark cartoons about the prophet, many muslims did not agree on the reaction that was shown to these cartoons but no one covers that. Yusuf Estes and some people went to Danemark to have conversations about what happened. Was that covered by the media? Please watch this video


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_7YD0w3zms