Was Islam spread by the sword?

[Sabour]

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???

[/SIZE][/FONT]

If that was Islam I would be the first to be a non muslim.

 

[FearGod]

If the cause was not a valid casus belli or in fact fabricated then the clause of defensive wars is invalid. Also the ends do not justify the means. Otherwise one must accept a number of horrible acts as acceptable because the results were good. For example Israeli is justified in it's acts as the nation developed the land far more than it's neighbors have. Nevermind that this prosperity came at the cost of other people and war.

As other have pointed out treating people based on their religion is a form of discrimination. Discrimination at the state level propagated by those which controlled the armies aka the swords. As I have pointed out before even sources link by Paar prove that there are cases in which Islam was spread by forced conversion with the threat of death. There is also forced conversion of the Devsirme system of the Ottomans. There is also the case to be made that Islam was spread in the wake of it's armies. Armies which protected the new state, which as I noted treated people based on religion first and foremost. Armies which reinforced state policy and put down even internal conflicts between Muslims. This is evident if one even spends an hour reading Islamic history. While I admit the tolerance with many Muslim political entities was a far better improvement than that of Christianity. It was not superior to the Roman system or modern secular societies.

So there are cases in which Islam was spread by oppression, violence, merit and dialogue. It is not black and white case for Islam. However many wish it to be so based on their religious ideology or the opposition to it.

If you don't trust the Islamic sources which says that the Romans and the Persians were oppressive forces and the Islamic state liberated the local people from oppression and some of them converted to Islam and some others stayed with their parents religion till our recent days, then which sources do you want to believe other than the available sources.

Do you have a persian and Romanian sources.

 

[FearGod]

If that was Islam I would be the first to be a non muslim.

I'll flee too.:run:

 

[paarsurrey]

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

I further quote from Mirza Tahir Ahmad; the late Caliph of Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat:

"The very essence of secularism is that absolute justice must be practised regardless of the differences of faith and religion and colour and creed and group.

This, in essence, is the true definition of secularism. And this is exactly what the Holy Qur'an admonishes us to do in matters of state, how things should be done and how the state should be run.

The Holy Qur'an says" 5:9, and I quote it with the context verses: [2]


[5:5] They ask thee what is made lawful for them. Say, ‘All good things have been made lawful for you; and what you have taught the beasts and birds of prey to catch for you, training them for hunting and teaching them of what Allah has taught you. So eat of that which they catch for you, and pronounce thereon the name of Allah. And fear Allah. Surely, Allah is quick in reckoning.’
[5:6] This day all good things have been made lawful for you. And the food of the People of the Book is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. And lawful for you are chaste believing women and chaste women from among those who were given the Book before you, when you give them their dowries, contracting valid marriage and not committing fornication nor taking secret paramours. And whoever rejects the faith, his work has doubtless come to naught, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers.
[5:7] O ye who believe! when you stand up for Prayer, wash your faces, and your hands up to the elbows, and pass your wet hands over your heads, and wash your feet to the ankles. And if you be unclean, purify yourselves by bathing. And if you are ill or you are on a journey while unclean, or one of you comes from the privy or you have touched women, and you find not water, betake yourselves to pure dust and wipe therewith your faces and your hands. Allah desires not that He should place you in a difficulty, but He desires to purify you and to complete His favour upon you, so that you may be grateful.
[5:8] And remember Allah’s favour upon you and the covenant which He made with you, when you said, ‘We hear and we obey.’ And fear Allah. Surely, Allah knows well what is in the minds.
[5:9] O ye who believe! be steadfast in the cause of Allah, bearing witness in equity; and let not a people’s enmity incite you to act otherwise than with justice. Be always just, that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah. Surely, Allah is aware of what you do.
[5:10] Allah has promised those who believe and do good deeds that they shall have forgiveness and a great reward.
[5:11] And as for those who disbelieve and reject Our Signs, they are the people of Hell.
[5:12] O ye who believe! remember Allah’s favour upon you when a people intended to stretch out their hands against you, but He withheld their hands from you; and fear Allah. And on Allah should the believers rely.

The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online

Please see verse [5:9] colored in Magenta above for the perusal of the viewers.

Everybody's comments are welcome; whether religious or not religious.

Regards

 

[1robin]

What is bad about Somalia?

Regards

How about it being the backside of humanity. A place so corrupt that warlords steal the food sent to feed their own starving brothers. It is as ignorant and corrupt place as can exist. It is an example of complete and utter moral and civil failure.

 

[England my lionheart]

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.

Here's a couple of quotes from very prominent followers of Islam,"Israel will exist and continue to exist until Islam obliterates it just as its obliterated others before" Hasaan AL Banna (of loving memory to some),trt's the intro to the Hamas charter.

Saayid Qutb,i think his relations still hang out in Saudi:

... the Muslim community has long ago vanished from existence ... we can say that the Muslim community has been extinct for a few centuries, for this Muslim community does not denote the name of a land in which Islam resides, nor is it a people whose forefathers lived under the Islamic system at some earlier time. It is the name of a group of people whose manners, ideas and concepts, rules and regulations, values and criteria, are all derived from the Islamic source. The Muslim community with these characteristics vanished at the moment the laws of God became suspended on earth. [p.9]
Our whole environment, people's beliefs and ideas, habits and art, rules and laws - is Jahiliyyah, even to the extent that what we consider to be Islamic culture, Islamic sources, Islamic philosophy and Islamic thought are also constructs of Jahiliyyah!

Osama bin Laden was taught by Qutb but thought he didn't go far enough,to these guys this is true Islam

 

[Shad]

If you don't trust the Islamic sources which says that the Romans and the Persians were oppressive forces and the Islamic state liberated the local people from oppression and some of them converted to Islam and some others stayed with their parents religion till our recent days, then which sources do you want to believe other than the available sources.

Do you have a persian and Romanian sources.

Well for one a source which doesn't have absurd numbers like 100,000-200,000 Romans vs 3000 Muslim which was a Muslim victory. Most Muslim sources are not contemporary. Sources change as the current times demand showing that these sources are not history as we call it now but a narrative which changes when required.

One of the issues is that Muslim source flip-flop over their views of Byzantium. For example Abu Zakariyya Al-Farra said "The Persians were victorious over the Rum, and the Muslims were saddened while the Meccan polytheists rejoiced, because the Persians worship idols... but the Muslims were inclined toward the Rum because they are (also) people of the book." So in this example there is no mention of oppression nor opposition to Byzantium rule. Muslims would rather see Byzantium rule than Persians. We see support for what is claimed to be an oppressive state under the same Emperor. Why is the state suddenly seen as oppressive? We can link this change directly to the rejection of Islam by different people within the Empire be it tribes, governors and/or the Emperor. The wounded ego of Muhammad drove this view just at it drove the changing view of the Jews. We also see a change in the view of the Persians who were Zoroastrians. At first they are idol worshipers later on as Paar claims there followed the same God. This quote also shows that the conflict between Muslims and polytheists in Arabia was still a priority in which external conflicts had an influence. Again due to the wounded ego of Muhammad due to rejection.

I believe for those Christians which were seen as heretics Byzantium rule was oppressive. However the loss of statue for Orthodox Christians under Muslim rule would also be seen as oppression. After all it was the state-sponsored religion. The same is true for Zoroastrians until the Abbasid period. The previous Umayyad dynasty was Arab-centric in which not just religion was used to judge people but ethnicity as well. After the Abbasid revolt there are a number of Zoroastrian texts which are made in the defense of Zoroastrianism due to the pressure Muslim influence exerted upon the people. There is the restriction of trade, restricted construction of new religious sites. Muslims cut down a tree which was believed to be planted by Zoroaster in order to build a palace. This would have been a sacred or holy site for Zoroastrians. How would you react if a non-believe destroyed Muhammad's tomb or the kabbalah for a palace. I already know Muslims had a negative view of polytheists even using kabbalah

What I see is a changing narrative to suit the times as required. Likewise the Byzantium's views change as well. For many the decade long war against the Persians was taxing on wealth, manpower and land. Yet after the victory many rejoiced when Heraclitus restored the "True Cross". The cost was worth the results. There is also the fact that many will always complain about hardships especially during a time in which life was a daily struggle. Even these days with all our modern conveniences and low taxes people still complain or see their governments as oppressive. To take all these complaints as legitimate concerns creates a situation in which anyone can claim any nation is oppressive.

Start with "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" by Gibbon. Followed by Fergus Millar's work, he solely wrote about Rome East and West.

The fact is history is first written by the victors. To take these sources at face value is a mistake as evident in Euro-centric history. Also there is a lack of sources from the oppressed themselves. We are only hearing sources from the two powers not the people under these powers. These sources are very rare as information within in the time frame is rare from either state involved. It would be like taking American only sources of how oppressed Iraq was and how free they are now. Iraq was oppressed because I said it was. Never mind the issues Iraq faces now because the historical narrative is not about the people but about a victory of the people of the writer over those they opposed. Never mind Iraq was oppressed by a system supported by America. History is not black and white nor monolithic. There was oppression of Muslims and Hindus in India by their own people, opposing religions and external influences from the colonial powers. Likewise the Ottomans were seen as oppressive to many Christians in the Balkans. From some Muslim views the changes in Ottoman law during the 18th and 19th centuries were see as anti-Islamic while seen as progress and reforms by non-Muslims.

Modern history is rewriting the history of the past due to regional and ethnic views, state-sponsored views and propaganda. Take for example Christians sources covering Muslim Spain and the Reconquest. From these sources Muslims are seen well evil. If we look at Muslim sources it is the Christian states which are wrong. If we look at both sources in conjunction we both side commit horrible acts, both sides showing tolerance. However both sides are firmly rooted within their own ideology which is represented by their history of these events. Bias is more often than not always present in sources from the past. Even in modern times there is bias hence why there is peer-review now as it is required for even an honest approach at history

 

[paarsurrey]

How about it being the backside of humanity. A place so corrupt that warlords steal the food sent to feed their own starving brothers. It is as ignorant and corrupt place as can exist. It is an example of complete and utter moral and civil failure.

The country is not being managed correctly; that is beside the point we are discussing here.

We are discussing as to how Islam reached that land.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I'll flee too.:run:

I also won't like to live under them.

Regards

 

[Chev Chelios]

I further quote from Mirza Tahir Ahmad; the late Caliph of Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat:

"The very essence of secularism is that absolute justice must be practised regardless of the differences of faith and religion and colour and creed and group.

This, in essence, is the true definition of secularism. And this is exactly what the Holy Qur'an admonishes us to do in matters of state, how things should be done and how the state should be run.

The Holy Qur'an says" 5:9, and I quote it with the context verses: [2]


[5:5] They ask thee what is made lawful for them. Say, ‘All good things have been made lawful for you; and what you have taught the beasts and birds of prey to catch for you, training them for hunting and teaching them of what Allah has taught you. So eat of that which they catch for you, and pronounce thereon the name of Allah. And fear Allah. Surely, Allah is quick in reckoning.’
[5:6] This day all good things have been made lawful for you. And the food of the People of the Book is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. And lawful for you are chaste believing women and chaste women from among those who were given the Book before you, when you give them their dowries, contracting valid marriage and not committing fornication nor taking secret paramours. And whoever rejects the faith, his work has doubtless come to naught, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers.
[5:7] O ye who believe! when you stand up for Prayer, wash your faces, and your hands up to the elbows, and pass your wet hands over your heads, and wash your feet to the ankles. And if you be unclean, purify yourselves by bathing. And if you are ill or you are on a journey while unclean, or one of you comes from the privy or you have touched women, and you find not water, betake yourselves to pure dust and wipe therewith your faces and your hands. Allah desires not that He should place you in a difficulty, but He desires to purify you and to complete His favour upon you, so that you may be grateful.
[5:8] And remember Allah’s favour upon you and the covenant which He made with you, when you said, ‘We hear and we obey.’ And fear Allah. Surely, Allah knows well what is in the minds.
[5:9] O ye who believe! be steadfast in the cause of Allah, bearing witness in equity; and let not a people’s enmity incite you to act otherwise than with justice. Be always just, that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah. Surely, Allah is aware of what you do.
[5:10] Allah has promised those who believe and do good deeds that they shall have forgiveness and a great reward.
[5:11] And as for those who disbelieve and reject Our Signs, they are the people of Hell.
[5:12] O ye who believe! remember Allah’s favour upon you when a people intended to stretch out their hands against you, but He withheld their hands from you; and fear Allah. And on Allah should the believers rely.

The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online

Please see verse [5:9] colored in Magenta above for the perusal of the viewers.

Everybody's comments are welcome; whether religious or not religious.

Regards

Thankyou for your response - I will take a look at those links when I have the time - although I fail to see how quotes such as " And as for those who disbelieve and reject Our Signs, they are the people of Hell" prove Islams holy texts are secular seeking documents?

First, let’s start with some housekeeping - secularism is defined as: "A doctrine that rejects any form of religious faith and worship" or "The belief that religion and ecclesiastical affairs should not enter into the function of the state."

In consideration of the fact that in Islam, religion gave rise to the ‘Islamic state’, this would mean that the very foundation of ‘the state’ is anchored on religion – so straight away I think that separating religion from the state 100% will be near impossible

Now, I hope I am correct in saying the most fundamental belief in Islam is that the Koran is the word of God whilst most seem to agree the Sunnah is the God of Islam’s guidance to Muhammad. Thus, what is espoused in these holy texts have come together to create what is known as Sharia.

Shariah itself is defined as "the code of law derived from the Koran and from the teachings and example of Muhammed; "sharia is only applicable to Moslems"; "under Islamic law there is no separation of church and state". Indeed, Shariah is “the speech of God in relation to the acts of his servants via requests, choices and circumstantial laws” this is confirmed in the Koran: 5:48

“So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you we prescribed a law (sharia) and a method…”

So, if secularism is based on separating religion from all the affairs of this life so that a land and our lives are ruled by man made laws and regulations rather than the law of God then surely there can be no doubt that secularism contradicts Islam in every aspect. Secularism and Islamic law are two different paths that never meet; choosing one must mean rejecting the other. The great extent of Islam’s legislation means that your faith guides Moslems through every detail from running the state and their lives – it provides guidance relating to prayer, fasting, war, peace, trade, taxes, governance, family matters, diet and so on. This means that Islam cannot be separated from the state and so a true Moslem, if we go by the texts (which came from the mouth of God) means to follow Islam gives you no choice but to reject secularism for it excludes the law of Allah.

Put simply – secularism rejects Allah’s law and it makes lawful what Allah has forbidden.

 

[1robin]

The country is not being managed correctly; that is beside the point we are discussing here.

We are discussing as to how Islam reached that land.

Regards

I did not intend to link it directly to Islam but it would not be hard to do. Someone said that they would not have expected Somalia to be held up as an example of something good and another person seemed to not understand why that is. I simply gave a few of the thousands of reasons Somalia is not a jewel on any crown. It would take only minutes to link it's problems to Islam but so far I have not attempted to do so.

 

[1robin]

I also won't like to live under them.

Regards

If it was not for Christian nations most of us would be living either under the most brutal of Islamic terrorist organizations, fascism in it's worst form, or a sea to sea communist atheist utopia. Not even Islam would like the world that removing Christian nations would have resulted in. Just think back in history at how many Islamic expansions were stopped by Christian nations alone. Even the only moderately bad ones like Saladin's type.

 

[FearGod]

Well for one a source which doesn't have absurd numbers like 100,000-200,000 Romans vs 3000 Muslim which was a Muslim victory. Most Muslim sources are not contemporary. Sources change as the current times demand showing that these sources are not history as we call it now but a narrative which changes when required.

One of the issues is that Muslim source flip-flop over their views of Byzantium. For example Abu Zakariyya Al-Farra said "The Persians were victorious over the Rum, and the Muslims were saddened while the Meccan polytheists rejoiced, because the Persians worship idols... but the Muslims were inclined toward the Rum because they are (also) people of the book." So in this example there is no mention of oppression nor opposition to Byzantium rule. Muslims would rather see Byzantium rule than Persians. We see support for what is claimed to be an oppressive state under the same Emperor. Why is the state suddenly seen as oppressive? We can link this change directly to the rejection of Islam by different people within the Empire be it tribes, governors and/or the Emperor. The wounded ego of Muhammad drove this view just at it drove the changing view of the Jews. We also see a change in the view of the Persians who were Zoroastrians. At first they are idol worshipers later on as Paar claims there followed the same God. This quote also shows that the conflict between Muslims and polytheists in Arabia was still a priority in which external conflicts had an influence. Again due to the wounded ego of Muhammad due to rejection.

I believe for those Christians which were seen as heretics Byzantium rule was oppressive. However the loss of statue for Orthodox Christians under Muslim rule would also be seen as oppression. After all it was the state-sponsored religion. The same is true for Zoroastrians until the Abbasid period. The previous Umayyad dynasty was Arab-centric in which not just religion was used to judge people but ethnicity as well. After the Abbasid revolt there are a number of Zoroastrian texts which are made in the defense of Zoroastrianism due to the pressure Muslim influence exerted upon the people. There is the restriction of trade, restricted construction of new religious sites. Muslims cut down a tree which was believed to be planted by Zoroaster in order to build a palace. This would have been a sacred or holy site for Zoroastrians. How would you react if a non-believe destroyed Muhammad's tomb or the kabbalah for a palace. I already know Muslims had a negative view of polytheists even using kabbalah

What I see is a changing narrative to suit the times as required. Likewise the Byzantium's views change as well. For many the decade long war against the Persians was taxing on wealth, manpower and land. Yet after the victory many rejoiced when Heraclitus restored the "True Cross". The cost was worth the results. There is also the fact that many will always complain about hardships especially during a time in which life was a daily struggle. Even these days with all our modern conveniences and low taxes people still complain or see their governments as oppressive. To take all these complaints as legitimate concerns creates a situation in which anyone can claim any nation is oppressive.

Start with "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" by Gibbon. Followed by Fergus Millar's work, he solely wrote about Rome East and West.

The fact is history is first written by the victors. To take these sources at face value is a mistake as evident in Euro-centric history. Also there is a lack of sources from the oppressed themselves. We are only hearing sources from the two powers not the people under these powers. These sources are very rare as information within in the time frame is rare from either state involved. It would be like taking American only sources of how oppressed Iraq was and how free they are now. Iraq was oppressed because I said it was. Never mind the issues Iraq faces now because the historical narrative is not about the people but about a victory of the people of the writer over those they opposed. Never mind Iraq was oppressed by a system supported by America. History is not black and white nor monolithic. There was oppression of Muslims and Hindus in India by their own people, opposing religions and external influences from the colonial powers. Likewise the Ottomans were seen as oppressive to many Christians in the Balkans. From some Muslim views the changes in Ottoman law during the 18th and 19th centuries were see as anti-Islamic while seen as progress and reforms by non-Muslims.

Modern history is rewriting the history of the past due to regional and ethnic views, state-sponsored views and propaganda. Take for example Christians sources covering Muslim Spain and the Reconquest. From these sources Muslims are seen well evil. If we look at Muslim sources it is the Christian states which are wrong. If we look at both sources in conjunction we both side commit horrible acts, both sides showing tolerance. However both sides are firmly rooted within their own ideology which is represented by their history of these events. Bias is more often than not always present in sources from the past. Even in modern times there is bias hence why there is peer-review now as it is required for even an honest approach at history

Who told you that Muslims were rejoiced because the Romans were believers and the Persians were Atheists,that doesn't make any sense at all.

The Romans were an enemy to the Arabs and Muslims weren't glad for the Romans themselves but because the Persians became less stronger after losing their battle with the Romans.

Persia is very close to the Arab world and hence the Persians were having much power against Arabs since they were very close to them but the Romans were so far from the Arabs and their effect on them much less than the Persians.

Let me give you one example,

Imagine if Iran started a war against the Arab world and then the west decided to fight Iran, now if the west won and the Arabs rejoiced then that doesn't mean that the west are much better than Iran or not oppressors or not enemies to Arabs, but as the Arabs at that time were annoyed by Iran then they'll be glad that an external force beat Iran regardless of their beliefs or ethics.

 

[FearGod]

If it was not for Christian nations most of us would be living either under the most brutal of Islamic terrorist organizations, fascism in it's worst form, or a sea to sea communist atheist utopia. Not even Islam would like the world that removing Christian nations would have resulted in. Just think back in history at how many Islamic expansions were stopped by Christian nations alone. Even the only moderately bad ones like Saladin's type.

Do you think the Mongol Empire was much better or the disaster caused by the Christians in WW1 & WW2 ?

 

[1robin]

Do you think the Mongol Empire was much better or the disaster caused by the Christians in WW1 & WW2 ?

You smuggled in (or tried to about a cubic mile of baggage there). Do I think the Mongol empire better than what? The Christians did not cause either WW1 or WW2. A monarchy, a lucky sniper, national pride, and a few aristocrats caused WW1 and a maniacal lunatic with Islamic help caused WW2. Now first. In what way are the these three very different things comparable by you? In what way were Christian world views at fault ( I am sure there are some ways but to hang entire wars on them is historically irresponsible). Why are WW1 and WW2 in the same category? What is true of one does not apply to the other automatically. Why don't you make questions with a little more information and clarity if you actually wanted answers. Even though Islam will not I will lay our Christian failures at Christian feet. But neither war had any Christian cause what ever. One was over wounded pride of an aristocracy and the other was simple greed for land. Neither has even a single verse which can be distorted enough to defend wither one. Which disaster is worse stopping the Kaiser or Hitler is like asking which disaster is worse curing cancer or aids?

 

[England my lionheart]

If it was not for Christian nations most of us would be living either under the most brutal of Islamic terrorist organizations, fascism in it's worst form, or a sea to sea communist atheist utopia. Not even Islam would like the world that removing Christian nations would have resulted in. Just think back in history at how many Islamic expansions were stopped by Christian nations alone. Even the only moderately bad ones like Saladin's type.

Maybe you should consider what life would have been like without Islam or Christianity,they are both damaging imo

 

[paarsurrey]

Was Islam spread by the sword?

No.

For example:

Spread of Islam in Somalia: [7]

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

Sunni-Sufi orders and Islamic scholars [2]

The Qadiriyah, the oldest Sufi order, was founded in Baghdad by Abdul Qadir al-Jilani in 1166 and introduced to the SomaliAdal in the fifteenth century. During the eighteenth century, it was spread among the Oromo and the Anfar of Ethiopia, often under the leadership of Somali shaykhs. Its earliest known advocate in northern Somalia was Shaykh Abd ar Rahman az Zeilawi, who died in 1883.

At that time, Qadiriyah adherents were merchants in the ports and elsewhere. In a separate development, the Qadiriyah order also spread into the southern Somali port cities ofBaraawe and Mogadishu at an uncertain date. In 1819, Shaykh Ibrahim Hassan Jebro acquired land on the Jubba River and established a religious center in the form of a farming community, the first Somali jama'ah (congregation).

Outstanding figures of the Qadiriyah in Somalia included Shaykh Awes Mahammad Baraawi (d. 1909), who spread the teaching of the Sufi order in the southern interior. He wrote much devotional poetry in Arabic and attempted to translate traditional hymns from Arabic into Somali, working out his own phonetic system.

Another was Shaykh Abdirrahman Abdullah of Mogadishu, who stressed deep mysticism. Because of his reputation for sanctity, his tomb at Mogadishu became a pilgrimage center for the Shebelle valley and his writings continued to be circulated by his followers as late as the early 1990s.

Islam in Somalia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Regard

 

[paarsurrey]

I did not intend to link it directly to Islam but it would not be hard to do. Someone said that they would not have expected Somalia to be held up as an example of something good and another person seemed to not understand why that is. I simply gave a few of the thousands of reasons Somalia is not a jewel on any crown. It would take only minutes to link it's problems to Islam but so far I have not attempted to do so.

I don't mind if it is exemplary or not; that could be explained away. Religion has nothing to do as to what a nation does politically. If they have to progress materially; they shall have to govern themselves in a better way.

If somebody jumps from a hill-top and no religion commands that; sure the individual would get killed; his religion has no responsibility.

I don't mind opposing comments.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

If it was not for Christian nations most of us would be living either under the most brutal of Islamic terrorist organizations, fascism in it's worst form, or a sea to sea communist atheist utopia. Not even Islam would like the world that removing Christian nations would have resulted in. Just think back in history at how many Islamic expansions were stopped by Christian nations alone. Even the only moderately bad ones like Saladin's type.

I don't agree with you.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Thankyou for your response - I will take a look at those links when I have the time - although I fail to see how quotes such as " And as for those who disbelieve and reject Our Signs, they are the people of Hell" prove Islams holy texts are secular seeking documents?

First, let’s start with some housekeeping - secularism is defined as: "A doctrine that rejects any form of religious faith and worship" or "The belief that religion and ecclesiastical affairs should not enter into the function of the state."

In consideration of the fact that in Islam, religion gave rise to the ‘Islamic state’, this would mean that the very foundation of ‘the state’ is anchored on religion – so straight away I think that separating religion from the state 100% will be near impossible

Now, I hope I am correct in saying the most fundamental belief in Islam is that the Koran is the word of God whilst most seem to agree the Sunnah is the God of Islam’s guidance to Muhammad. Thus, what is espoused in these holy texts have come together to create what is known as Sharia.

Shariah itself is defined as "the code of law derived from the Koran and from the teachings and example of Muhammed; "sharia is only applicable to Moslems"; "under Islamic law there is no separation of church and state". Indeed, Shariah is “the speech of God in relation to the acts of his servants via requests, choices and circumstantial laws” this is confirmed in the Koran: 5:48

“So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you we prescribed a law (sharia) and a method…”

So, if secularism is based on separating religion from all the affairs of this life so that a land and our lives are ruled by man made laws and regulations rather than the law of God then surely there can be no doubt that secularism contradicts Islam in every aspect. Secularism and Islamic law are two different paths that never meet; choosing one must mean rejecting the other. The great extent of Islam’s legislation means that your faith guides Moslems through every detail from running the state and their lives – it provides guidance relating to prayer, fasting, war, peace, trade, taxes, governance, family matters, diet and so on. This means that Islam cannot be separated from the state and so a true Moslem, if we go by the texts (which came from the mouth of God) means to follow Islam gives you no choice but to reject secularism for it excludes the law of Allah.

Put simply – secularism rejects Allah’s law and it makes lawful what Allah has forbidden.

Please take your own time.

Regards