Was Islam spread by the sword?

[paarsurrey]

The sources for the battle are unreliable due to the absurd numbers of forces Islamic sources claim the Romans had, up to 200,000 men. For one Byzantium could barely field 50,000 men during the almost decade long war against the Persians. Yet we are to belief that the Byzantium could muster 100,000 to 200,000 men on short notice against what was a border skirmish. The over the top embellishment damages the creditiblity of sources for this conflict.

Now it is a fact that Muslim Rule defeated the two powers of the world; the Romans and the Persians.

It had got nothing to do with spreading Islam.

Regards

 

[Sabour]

No. Saudi Arabia's concern with ISIS is territorial not ideological and this Saudi concern emanates from its Monarchy - there are many Saudi's who support them. The Saudi head of state can see the threat ISIS represents to its borders but there are many Saudi groups funding ISIS. Indeed, Saudi Arabia itself was implicit in the creation of ISIS by its support of the anti-Shia militia in Syria and Iraq in order to wipe them out. It is only now that this militia has conglomerated to form a monster which is now fully self perpetuating and uncontrollable that the ruling elite of Saudi Arabia are now quite rightly in full on panic mode due to the impending threat ISIS represent to its land.

Now, I am well aware that many Moslems do not support ISIS but I am also aware many do however my point was that ISIS do represent Islamic ideals and there is simply no way of avoiding this. They are doing what the followers of Islam always do when freed from dictatorial governance or when it is the boss – wipe out non Moslems to create lands completely overshadowed by the faith. Hezbollah’s stated goal is to establish an Islamic state and because there is no separation of politics and faith in Islam we see that their political motives are intimately linked to their spiritual ones. Sorry but Hezbollah are most certainly motivated by Islam. I am glad you do not support them.

In no way ISIS represents Islamic ideals. Learn what Islam is before speaking.

Sorry that the truth is not what you think.

I live in Lebanon and I am a muslim so don't teach me about Hezbollah and claim that you know what is Islam and who is representing Islam.

 

[Chev Chelios]

In no way ISIS represents Islamic ideals. Learn what Islam is before speaking.

Sorry that the truth is not what you think.

I live in Lebanon and I am a muslim so don't teach me about Hezbollah and claim that you know what is Islam and who is representing Islam.

So the establishment of an Islamic state where all runs in accordance with Islam, which is a brief summary of ISIS's goal, is a complete anathema to Islam is it? The persecution of religious minorities has nothing to do with Islam? Beheadings are nothing to do with Islam???

The fact is that you have said ISIS has nothing to do with Islam and seem to think that because you are a Moslem this is sufficient to stand as fact. No. Whilst it is nice that you do not agree with ISIS this does not mean your interpretation of Islam is more authentic than theirs. So you will have to do better and seeing as this is a debate forum please explain to me what it is about ISIS that you think expunges any influence of Islam from them. Please also do the same with Hezbollah and why you think Islam isn't intimately involved in their motivation.

And please do not be so dismissive of peoples opinions because you disagree with them – I know much about Islam and I do not need to be a Moslem or be unfortunate enough to live under its rule (although I have done) to be able to say that.

 

[paarsurrey]

This is deeply concerning and another example of an astonishing lie! To even dare try and frame Islam’s presence in Somalia as one of passivity all the while omitting the persecution of religious minorities throughout every level of its governance is truly Orwellian and more than a bit disgusting when we consider the slaughter that has been happening there. You seem to purposefully ignore numerous groups such as Al-Shabaab who are intentionally imposing their beliefs on others by carrying out wholesale conversions and or slaughter of non-Moslems.

I pointed out in comments earlier your lack of dignity and again we see this loud and clear - and I bet you consider yourself a 'moderate' Moslem! That Moslems so readily lie for their faith is becoming more and more troubling and is actually starting to support the idea of Taqiyya - an apparently Islamic precept that I have traditionally always thought of as ludicrous. Well I am coming to realise that this seemingly conspiracy notion may be the only thing that can explain these bare faced lies by so many Moslems when discussing their faith. Somalia is acknowledged as one of the worst offenders of religious freedom violations on the planet – that you’d frame such a land in this way shows how extreme your views actually are.

You seem to purposefully ignore numerous groups such as Al-Shabaab who are intentionally imposing their beliefs on others by carrying out wholesale conversions and or slaughter of non-Moslems.

I quoted it from Wikipedia.

Al-Shabaab is a political group and is a recent and temporary phenomenon; they are cruel people and have nothing to do with Quran/Islam/Muhammad. Islam is in Somalia for centuries and spread there naturally and peacefully.

I never supported them.

Regards

 

[Chev Chelios]

I quoted it from Wikipedia.

Al-Shabaab is a political group and is a recent and temporary phenomenon; they are cruel people and have nothing to do with Quran/Islam/Muhammad. Islam is in Somalia for centuries and spread there naturally and peacefully.

I never supported them.

Regards

In Islam, the political and the religious are synonymous with each other. Al-shabaab clearly consider themselves a movement in the spirit of Islam. Now, it is absolutely marvellous that you think they are cruel but by saying that they have nothing to do with Islam you are implying that you have the authority to say what is and isn’t a Moslem - you shouldn’t do this. Al-Shabaab clearly believe they are following the will of Allah and I detect a whiff of hands wringing by yourself in order to cover this fact up by suggesting they are misrepresenting Islam - again their stated goal is in accordance with that found in Islam. Maybe it is you who has misinterpreted your faith.

Also - I didn't say you supported them - I said you ignored them in order to portray the spread of Islam and its history in Somalia as peaceful. This is a lie - many Moslems are force converting Christians there as we speak and have done so not just recently as you suggest but historically. You failed to mention the slaughter religious minorities have faced there at the hands of Moslems or indeed the oppression and imposition of Islam on all its subjects by the Somali government itself.

 

[paarsurrey]

In Islam, the political and the religious are synonymous with each other. Al-shabaab clearly consider themselves a movement in the spirit of Islam. Now, it is absolutely marvellous that you think they are cruel but by saying that they have nothing to do with Islam you are implying that you have the authority to say what is and isn’t a Moslem - you shouldn’t do that. Al-Shabaab clearly believe they are following the will of Allah and I detect a whiff of hands wringing by yourself in order to cover this fact up by suggesting they are misrepresenting Islam. Maybe it is you have misinterpreted your faith!

Also - I didn't say you supported them - I said you ignored them in order to portray the spread of Islam and its history in Somalia as peaceful. This is a lie - many Moslems are force converting Christians there as we speak and have done so historically. You failed to mention the slaughter religious minorities have faced there at the hands of Moslems or indeed the oppression and imposition of Islam on all its subjects by the Somali government itself.

That is not true. State and religion are different subjects; state does the politics and religion is practiced by an individual.

In present times when the society has moved from tribal system to democracy; Quran/Islam/Muhammad would support secular rule, where everybody is treated with justice and equitably.

Islam supports equitable treatment to all without discrimination of religion, color or race. Theocracy or rule by the clergy where others are not treated equitably is not supported by Quran/Islam/Muhammad.

Mirza Tahir Ahmad- the late Head of Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat has rightly said that "Islam pleads for the secular type of government more than any religion and more than any political system".

One may like to read from the following link:
“Shariah Relationship Between Religion And Politics In Islam”, A speech delivered by Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad Khalifatul Masih IV, at the Inter Religious Consults, Suriname, on 3rd June 1991.

https://www.alislam.org/books/shariah/

Of course one could differ with me.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Was Islam spread by the sword?

No.

For example:

Spread of Islam in Somalia: [3]

Nearly all people in Somalia are Sunni Muslims. For more than 1400 years, Islam made a great part of Somali society.[1]Practicing Islam reinforces distinctions that further set Somalis apart from their immediate neighbors, many of whom are either Christians or adherents of indigenous faiths. The early Muslims sought refuge from persecution in cities on the northern Somali coast.

History

Modern era [1]

Because Muslims believe that their faith was revealed in its complete form to the Prophet Muhammad, it has been difficult to adapt Islam to the social, economic, and political changes that began with the expansion of colonial rule in the late nineteenth century.

Some modifications have occurred, however. One response was to stress a return to orthodox Muslim traditions and to oppose Westernization totally. The Sufi brotherhoods were at the forefront of this movement, personified in Somalia by Mohammed Abdullah Hassan in the early 1900s. Generally, the leaders of Islamic orders opposed the spread of Western education.[19]

Another response was to reform Islam by reinterpreting it. From this perspective, early Islam was seen as a protest against abuse, corruption, and inequality; reformers therefore attempted to prove that Muslim scriptures contained all elements needed to deal with modernization.

To this school of thought belongs Islamic socialism, identified particularly with Egyptian nationalist Gamal Abdul Nasser. His ideas appealed to a number of Somalis, especially those who had studied in Cairo in the 1950s and 1960s.[20]

Islam in Somalia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Regard

 

[Shad]

Now it is a fact that Muslim Rule defeated the two powers of the world; the Romans and the Persians.

It had got nothing to do with spreading Islam.

Regards

Yes they did. However your reply is a red herring as it is not addressing my comment. I was talking about a source which is in dispute. Follow the comment trail...

 

[Poeticus]

red herring

I wouldn't use such fancy, polemical terminology. I doubt Paarsurrey even knows what it is. Ha.

 

[Shad]

True. I would probably have to start teaching Logic 101 to get my point across.

 

[FearGod]

Yes they did. However your reply is a red herring as it is not addressing my comment. I was talking about a source which is in dispute. Follow the comment trail...

How it is red herring ?

Did the Romans convert to Islam after Muslims had won the war ?
How then Islam was spread by the sword ?

 

[Chev Chelios]

That is not true. State and religion are different subjects; state does the politics and religion is practiced by an individual.

In present times when the society has moved from tribal system to democracy; Quran/Islam/Muhammad would support secular rule, where everybody is treated with justice and equitably.

Islam supports equitable treatment to all without discrimination of religion, color or race. Theocracy or rule by the clergy where others are not treated equitably is not supported by Quran/Islam/Muhammad.

Mirza Tahir Ahmad- the late Head of Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat has rightly said that "Islam pleads for the secular type of government more than any religion and more than any political system".

One may like to read from the following link:
“Shariah Relationship Between Religion And Politics In Islam”, A speech delivered by Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad Khalifatul Masih IV, at the Inter Religious Consults, Suriname, on 3rd June 1991.

https://www.alislam.org/books/shariah/

Of course one could differ with me.

Regards

I completely disagree with you - Islam does not subscribe to the idea of a separation of church and state and its texts make it much harder to achieve than say, the texts of Christianity. Christianities texts are far more malleable and Biblical passages such as "render unto Caesar what is Caesars and to God's what is God's" as well as Parables such as the ‘Parable of the Tares’ found in Matthew helped form the bedrock of Western secularism.

Can you show me explicit texts in the Koran which support your argument that Islam "pleads for the most secular type of government more than any other religion". This should be very easy for you.

This reminds me of what an earlier poster said about Hezboallah being a political party. Sorry but Hezbollah have not forsaken the basic tenents of Islam and so therefore cannot be deemed to be a secular party! The strong religious identity they advocate and impose means that they transpose Islamic views on political affairs, thus nullifying any separation of powers between religion and politics and so therefore their religious component colours the political discourse

I also completely disagree with your argument that Islam supports religious freedom - we only need to look at the treatment of religious minorities under Islamic rule in the current day and historically to know this is a lie. But please do feel free to give me actual Islamic scripture which supports your argument that Islam supports equitable treatment for all.

I say that Verse 9:29 (and 9:30) of the Koran completely obliterates this claim of yours that Islam affords equal treatment to all religions. If you look at that verse in its immediate context we can see that your holy book very clearly tells us that the Jews and Christians are to be fought for no other reason than because they believe that God had a son – your God attacks them because of their beliefs and it mandates that they pay Jizya to be allowed to continue their beliefs!

 

[Shad]

How it is red herring ?

Did the Romans convert to Islam after Muslims had won the war ?
How then Islam was spread by the sword ?

My first comment was in regard to the start of the Byzantium/Arab wars in which claims were made. I cited sources which were in dispute due to absurd references. I stated why the sources are absurd. Your response dodge the chain of comments by going to the result of the Arab/Byzantium Wars rather than dealing with the comment topic at hand. This is a red herring. Look it up. Further more you want me to address the red herring which I have no obligation to respond to within the comments topics. Stay focused, stay on the topic at hand.

 

[Poeticus]

True. I would probably have to start teaching Logic 101 to get my point across.

Not even an Intro to Logic Pre-101 for Dummies would get the point across, my friend.

 

[gnostic]

I also completely disagree with your argument that Islam supports religious freedom - we only need to look at the treatment of religious minorities under Islamic rule in the current day and historically to know this is a lie. But please do feel free to give me actual Islamic scripture which supports your argument that Islam supports equitable treatment for all.

They don't even have religious freedom among themselves, let alone outsiders (non-Muslims). The two biggest groups of Muslims, Sunni and Shiites, fight among themselves, even more violently than they do against non-Muslims.

Although many view Wahhabi (being off-shoot of Sunni Islam) as oppressive, which they are, but the conflict between Sunni and Shiites have shown how oppressive and violent they have become toward each other.

 

[FearGod]

They don't even have religious freedom among themselves, let alone outsiders (non-Muslims). The two biggest groups of Muslims, Sunni and Shiites, fight among themselves, even more violently than they do against non-Muslims.

Although many view Wahhabi (being off-shoot of Sunni Islam) as oppressive, which they are, but the conflict between Sunni and Shiites have shown how oppressive and violent they have become toward each other.

So there is freedom since some chose to be Sunni and some others chose to be Shiites,that alone proves that there is space of freedom in their choices and views.

 

[paarsurrey]

Was Islam spread by the sword?

No.

For example:

Spread of Islam in Somalia: [4]

Nearly all people in Somalia are Sunni Muslims. For more than 1400 years, Islam made a great part of Somali society.[1]Practicing Islam reinforces distinctions that further set Somalis apart from their immediate neighbors, many of whom are either Christians or adherents of indigenous faiths. The early Muslims sought refuge from persecution in cities on the northern Somali coast.

History

Modern era [2]

The 1961 constitution guaranteed freedom of religion but also declared the newly independent republic an Islamic state. The first two post-independence governments paid lip service to the principles of Islamic socialism but made relatively few changes. The coup of October 21, 1969, installed a radical regime committed to profound change. Shortly afterward, Stella d'Ottobre, the official newspaper of the Supreme Revolutionary Council (SRC), published an editorial about relations between Islam and socialism and the differences between scientific and Islamic socialism.

Islamic socialism was said to have become a servant of capitalism and neocolonialism and a tool manipulated by a privileged, rich, and powerful class. In contrast, scientific socialism was based on the altruistic values that inspired genuine Islam. Religious leaders should therefore leave secular affairs to the new leaders who were striving for goals that conformed with Islamic principles.

Soon after, the government arrested several protesting religious leaders and accused them of counterrevolutionary propaganda and of conniving with reactionary elements in the Arabian Peninsula. The authorities also dismissed several members of religious tribunals for corruption and incompetence.
When the Three-Year Plan, 1971–1973, was launched in January 1971, SRC leaders felt compelled to win the support of religious leaders so as to transform the existing social structure.

On September 4, 1971, Siad Barre exhorted more than 100 religious teachers to participate in building a new socialist society. He criticized their method of teaching in Qur'anic schools and charged some with using religion for personal profit.

Islam in Somalia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Regard

 

[gnostic]

So there is freedom since some chose to be Sunni and some others chose to be Shiites,that alone proves that there is space of freedom in their choices and views.

Choosing to be one or the other is not the problem; the problem is not leaving each other alone and in peace.there is no freedom to remain at peace with other.

Either side try to impose their brand of Islam upon the other. The fighting between the two, have become a matter of senseless pride and wanting to subjugate the other side.

It is about having POWER over the other. And power have corrupted both sides. Do you truly not see that?

 

[FearGod]

My first comment was in regard to the start of the Byzantium/Arab wars in which claims were made. I cited sources which were in dispute due to absurd references. I stated why the sources are absurd. Your response dodge the chain of comments by going to the result of the Arab/Byzantium Wars rather than dealing with the comment topic at hand. This is a red herring. Look it up. Further more you want me to address the red herring which I have no obligation to respond to within the comments topics. Stay focused, stay on the topic at hand.

Regardless of what causes the war, the outcome was that Muslims defeated the Romans and that didn't force the Romans to convert to Islam, so my question at this point is how Islam was spread by the sword.

 

[gnostic]

Regardless of what causes the war, the outcome was that Muslims defeated the Romans and that didn't force the Romans to convert to Islam, so my question at this point is how Islam was spread by the sword.

It has been spread by remaining upon the land they have invaded, governing them when they could have govern themselves, imposing restrictions and taxes upon the non-Muslims, while they have the no privilege to bear arms. All that factored in as being compulsion.

Why not leave the land they have conquered? How was Islam different to any others empires?

The Romans before Christianity took over the empires, had allowed for people to keep their religions and cultures. The Romans have in fact adopted many religions that weren't native to their own.

Although it can't be said for emperors, Augustus, never ask for any province to worship Roman religion or to worship him.