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

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

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

Was Islam spread by the sword?

Status
Not open for further replies.

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Maybe you should consider what life would have been like without Islam or Christianity,they are both damaging imo
Christianity certainly has it's skeletons. However it also has produced many of the major public school systems, unified the rabble of city states into formidable nations, built hundreds of hospitals, was crucial in founding most major western relief organizations, founded moral laws on the only possible foundation that could make them true to begin with, produced the most generous demographic on earth, and founded modern abstract science. I could go on forever but I only need to point out how many times we stopped tyranny from taking over the entire earth to show that whatever are faults have been have been made up for time after time. Which would you rather have 1. A group of people who burned a handful of witches in Salem but also stopped Hitler, the Kaiser, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, and the Japanese lunatics who committed the worst war crimes in history, and numerous genocides. Or a group so passive as to not judge a few witches, nor fascism, communism, Nazism, and tyranny, and genocide. I don't know about you but the inquisition's 2000 deaths over 400 years does not mean we should throw out the only world view by which men have any real rights at all. A few Crusades are not too high a price to pay for modern science is it? I would prefer to have the good without the bad of course but any system that has men it, will have evil in it. All in all and comparatively I would say Christianity's good versus evil ratio far outstrips any similar group by a long way.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
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.
State systems many paces in just todays world are run by Islamic Jurisprudence. In former times the whole Islamic Caliphate was. They are Islamic from head to toe. From making threat's using Quran verses to threaten their neighbors, to having etiquette police on street corners making sure little girls have the scarves on straight. They better hope I never see (while on active duty) them dragging a teenager off the street when show could fix her burqa fast enough for those fascists. I saw that once on Utube and tried to join the IDF. Plus they make all newborns Muslims and then will not let you convert after you have finally learned how horrible it is, without risking you life. The entire legal system is based on Sharia Jurisprudence.


Christianity has had it's share of men who have tried to establish political systems based on a theology. The difference is that the Bible forbids it and the Quran is consistent with doing so. Jesus specifically said his kingdom is not of this world, that is the only place Muhammad kingdom was attached to.

If somebody jumps from a hill-top and no religion commands that; sure the individual would get killed; his religion has no responsibility.
Unless you find an open ended verse commanding some to do so.

Islam has entire lists of open ended verse demanding that unbelievers be irradiated, killed, enslaved. That is exactly what your only prophet did and much of the time without cause or a defensive motivation of any kind. There is not even a single verse in the new testament that authorizes violence for anything and the OT only applied to Israel and only for specific times and reasons, even they never received these strike the heads of al unbelievers crap the Quran has. Now before you waste time contradiction Muhammad and list the peaceful verses in the Quran I remind you again the earlier verses were all abrogated by the later violent ones. When Muhammad was week and without soldier he acted week, agreeable, and passive, the moment he was given troops then these violent verses painted in blood were written and the peaceful ones over turned.




I don't mind opposing comments.
If you did a debate is not a good place to be.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
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.

No one told me, a Muslim wrote this I put the name there quite clearly. Persians were not atheist either. Who told you this :p You are contradicting Paar.

The Persians and Byzantines both influences Arabia which occurred for centuries centuries

Your example is flawed as the Byzantines were being called brothers and people of the book. Also Persia was fighting Byzantium not Arabia. Arabia was not being invaded. Beliefs had very much to do with the view of pro-Byzantium vs Persia as my quote clearly shows. Also I do not cheer for what I see as an oppressive nation's victory over another oppressive nation. I do not cheer for the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany. I do not believe that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I agree with you on above two points numbered by me and colored in magenta.

Regards

These foreigners are Muslims drawn to the conflict due a religious ideology. Also Muslim nations are failing in the fight against radicals. Pakistan requires foreign aid as it is a failed state. Syria collapsed. Arabia has done nothing. Iraq is collapsing. Heck radical Shia groups are having more success than the standing army of Iraq. Turkey is doing little to nothing as these conflicts draw the radicals in Eastern Turkey into other nations. Iran is economical isolated. Who is having the greatest success against these groups? Western powers and ethnic minorities which become militant like the Kurds due to not the oppression of Isis but the long standing centuries of oppression by other Muslims.

If anything the unity of Muslims has becomes more fragmented than ever. But then the concept of unity died within a few decades of Muhammad's death. So the concept is more nostalgia then factual history.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
State systems many paces in just todays world are run by Islamic Jurisprudence. In former times the whole Islamic Caliphate was. They are Islamic from head to toe. From making threat's using Quran verses to threaten their neighbors, to having etiquette police on street corners making sure little girls have the scarves on straight. They better hope I never see (while on active duty) them dragging a teenager off the street when show could fix her burqa fast enough for those fascists. I saw that once on Utube and tried to join the IDF. Plus they make all newborns Muslims and then will not let you convert after you have finally learned how horrible it is, without risking you life. The entire legal system is based on Sharia Jurisprudence.


Christianity has had it's share of men who have tried to establish political systems based on a theology. The difference is that the Bible forbids it and the Quran is consistent with doing so. Jesus specifically said his kingdom is not of this world, that is the only place Muhammad kingdom was attached to.


Unless you find an open ended verse commanding some to do so.

Islam has entire lists of open ended verse demanding that unbelievers be irradiated, killed, enslaved. That is exactly what your only prophet did and much of the time without cause or a defensive motivation of any kind. There is not even a single verse in the new testament that authorizes violence for anything and the OT only applied to Israel and only for specific times and reasons, even they never received these strike the heads of al unbelievers crap the Quran has. Now before you waste time contradiction Muhammad and list the peaceful verses in the Quran I remind you again the earlier verses were all abrogated by the later violent ones. When Muhammad was week and without soldier he acted week, agreeable, and passive, the moment he was given troops then these violent verses painted in blood were written and the peaceful ones over turned.

If you did a debate is not a good place to be.

Islam has entire lists of open ended verse demanding that unbelievers be irradiated, killed, enslaved. That is exactly what your only prophet did and much of the time without cause or a defensive motivation of any kind.

Have you studied Quran from cover to cover yourself and prepared such a list yourself or you will copy/paste it from some site opposed to Islam/Quran/Muhammad?

Regards
 
The verses in the context clearly mention of the right of the Christians to follow their Gospels [5:47] [5:48] and the right of Jews to follow Torah [5:44] in the personal religious life; the state subject are different and are common to all Jews, Christians, Muslim etc.

Regards

This is not correct.

Here is verse 5:48 again:

“To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;”

We see that Verse 5:48 is telling us that Allah had sent down all previous scripture (the torah and the gospels) but now he has sent down a new revelation which supersedes them and which contains laws to be followed. The only slight curiosity is the line “We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety” – which you are relying on to show Islam’s tolerance. No. This line simply confirms Allah having guarded all that was good in the Torah and Bible for his new book and that this new book is more complete and perfect. It is not saying Jews or Christians have their books/faith safe guarded which is what you seem to be eluding to. We can see this in the previous verse…………

5:47
Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.

And the ones after it

5:49
And this (He commands): Judge thou between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, but beware of them lest they beguile thee from any of that (teaching) which Allah hath sent down to thee. And if they turn away, be assured that for some of their crime it is Allah´s purpose to punish them. And truly most men are rebellious.

5:50
Do they then seek after a judgment of (the days of) ignorance? But who, for a people whose faith is assured, can give better judgment than Allah?

5:51
O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

Your god clearly is saying that if the Jews and Christians do not follow the new revelation they are rebellious and not to be trusted. It is very clear.
 
Last edited:

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Was Islam spread by the sword?

No.

For example:

Spread of Islam in Somalia: [10]

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 [5]

Wadaddo help avert misfortune by making protective amulets and charms that transmit some of their baraka to others, or by adding the Qur'an's baraka to the amulet through a written passage. The baraka of a saint may be obtained in the form of an object that has touched or been placed near his tomb.

Although wadaddo may use their power to curse as a sanction, misfortune generally is not attributed to curses or witchcraft. Somalis have accepted the orthodox Muslim view that a man's conduct will be judged in an afterlife. However, a person who commits an antisocial act, such as patricide, is thought possessed of supernatural evil powers.

Like other Muslims, Somalis believe in jinn. Certain kinds of illness, including tuberculosis and pneumonia, or symptoms such as sneezing, coughing, vomiting, and loss of consciousness, are believed by some Somalis to result from spirit possession, namely, the Ifrit of the spirit world. The condition is treated by a shaykh, who reads portions of the Qur'an over the patient repeatedly.

Yibir clan members are popularly held to be descendants of Jewish Hebrew forbears. The etymology of the word "Yibir" is also believed by some to have come from the word for "Hebrew".[21] However, spokespersons for the Yibir have generally not tried to make their presence known to Jewish/Israeli authorities. Despite their putative Jewish origins, the overwhelming majority of the Yibir, like the Somali population in general, adhere to Islam and know practically nothing of Judaism.[22][23]

Islamism[edit]

Following the outbreak of the civil war in the early 1990s, Islamism appeared to be largely confined to the radical Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya group. In 1992, Colonel Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed marshalled forces to successfully expel an Islamist extremist group linked to the outfit, which had laid siege to Bosaso, a prominent port city and the commercial capital of the northeastern part of the country.[24]

Islam in Somalia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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

Regards
 
You misunderstood the verse due to your ignorance in the tafseer.

Here is the complete verse (8:12)

((When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger)).

God ordered his angels (human form) to kill the disbelievers with no mercy.

Angels may appear in human shape


Misunderstood or not isn't the point - you are conflating things. I quoted verse 8:12 to show that the God of Islam clearly sanctions beheadings to show this form of execution is a legitimate part of Islam. What the verse is saying is irrelevant and I offered no commentary on it. I can give you other passages in the Koran which mention beheadings - as I can your Hadith.

Take home message - beheadings are a part of Islam so those that say ISIS are not acting in accordance with the faith by doing it are not correct.

In any case - this verse seems to me to say that the God of Allah will behead disbelievers which doesn't sound very nice - but I am not at all surprised.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
This is not correct.

Here is verse 5:48 again:

“To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;”

We see that Verse 5:48 is telling us that Allah had sent down all previous scripture (the torah and the gospels) but now he has sent down a new revelation which supersedes them and which contains laws to be followed. The only slight curiosity is the line “We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety” – which you are relying on to show Islam’s tolerance. No. This line simply confirms Allah having guarded all that was good in the Torah and Bible for his new book and that this new book is more complete and perfect. It is not saying Jews or Christians have their books/faith safe guarded which is what you seem to be eluding to. We can see this in the previous verse…………

5:47
Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.

And the ones after it

5:49
And this (He commands): Judge thou between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, but beware of them lest they beguile thee from any of that (teaching) which Allah hath sent down to thee. And if they turn away, be assured that for some of their crime it is Allah´s purpose to punish them. And truly most men are rebellious.

5:50
Do they then seek after a judgment of (the days of) ignorance? But who, for a people whose faith is assured, can give better judgment than Allah?

5:51
O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

Your god clearly is saying that if the Jews and Christians do not follow the new revelation they are rebellious and not to be trusted. It is very clear.

I think I open a separate thread on this topic to discuss by all threadbare.

P.S.
I have opened the thread "Does Quran enjoin to keep state and religion (Church/Mosque/Temple) Together?".

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...n-enjoin-keep-state-religion.html#post3920360

Regards
 
Last edited:

FearGod

Freedom Of Mind
Misunderstood or not isn't the point - you are conflating things. I quoted verse 8:12 to show that the God of Islam clearly sanctions beheadings to show this form of execution is a legitimate part of Islam. What the verse is saying is irrelevant and I offered no commentary on it. I can give you other passages in the Koran which mention beheadings - as I can your Hadith.

Take home message - beheadings are a part of Islam so those that say ISIS are not acting in accordance with the faith by doing it are not correct.

In any case - this verse seems to me to say that the God of Allah will behead disbelievers which doesn't sound very nice - but I am not at all surprised.

Do you believe in God ?

If you don't believe that God does exist then you can blame all things to happen due to nature and human ignorance.

If you believe that God does exist then you can blame him for all bad things happening to us, from wars to diseases and many other things, but does that change anything.

What is your belief ?
 

FearGod

Freedom Of Mind
No one told me, a Muslim wrote this I put the name there quite clearly. Persians were not atheist either. Who told you this :p You are contradicting Paar.

The Persians and Byzantines both influences Arabia which occurred for centuries centuries

Your example is flawed as the Byzantines were being called brothers and people of the book. Also Persia was fighting Byzantium not Arabia. Arabia was not being invaded. Beliefs had very much to do with the view of pro-Byzantium vs Persia as my quote clearly shows. Also I do not cheer for what I see as an oppressive nation's victory over another oppressive nation. I do not cheer for the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany. I do not believe that the enemy of my enemy is my friend

Muslims respected the Romans but they were arrogant and killed the ambassador of the prophet who was sent with the letter of peace and at that point the prophet decided to invade the Romans which was achieved later on by Khalid bin Al walid.

Persia declared its hatred towards the prophet similarly when the prophet sent his ambassador to Chosroes II, he torn off the letter and said how dare that slave of me to send me such a letter, the prophet foretold and prophesied that the kingdom of Persia will be torn to peaces and he added that Chosroes will be killed by his own son and his nation will be turned to an Islamic nation.

[youtube]U6sKW6sW8FU[/youtube]
The letter sent to Chosroes the Emperor of Persia by Prophet Muhammad - YouTube
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
But there were always Christians, Jews, Hindus, disbelievers ..etc

How you explain that, regardless of how many they are ?
Islam can't fight, that's why. Even when outnumbering Israel who had no army, no AF, and 3 broken down tanks, and being outnumbered them by 80-1, Israel whipped al five nations that attacked them without cause and have done is many times. And did so without any western help. Terrorism is not strategic militarism, it is tactical hate. Not designed to ever win, just cause pointless suffering usually to those who never wronged a Muslim in any way.

Pointing out that a population was not killed to the last man is about the worst argument for another group being peaceful I think has ever or will ever be made. Since many Japanese survived Hiroshima I guess those bombs were just big teddy bears. Good grief, you just can't make this stuff up. With defenses like this Islam requires no critics.
 
FearGod Wrote:
The ISIS is killing Muslims and innocent people, so they are dangerous and many of them are foreigners,from Canada,Britain,Germany,USA..etc
......................................

In addition to my response regarding the misnomer that ISIS are killing Moslems and innocent people - I also fail to see what you feel the significance of ISIS being composed of many 'foreigners' is ? They are Moslems who have gone to fight in the of Islam to help bring about the caliphate so that Moslems worldwide can be bought under one banner - in accordance with Islamic theology as you agree. I am sure you know better than me that Moslems do not tend to subscribe to the idea of a nation, or at least they have an allegience to Islam and the supranational brotherhood of the ummah before their country folk. So being foreign or not is irrelevant - they are Moslem and that is all that matters.
 
Last edited:

Shad

Veteran Member
Muslims respected the Romans but they were arrogant and killed the ambassador of the prophet who was sent with the letter of peace and at that point the prophet decided to invade the Romans which was achieved later on by Khalid bin Al walid.

Persia declared its hatred towards the prophet similarly when the prophet sent his ambassador to Chosroes II, he torn off the letter and said how dare that slave of me to send me such a letter, the prophet foretold and prophesied that the kingdom of Persia will be torn to peaces and he added that Chosroes will be killed by his own son and his nation will be turned to an Islamic nation.

[youtube]U6sKW6sW8FU[/youtube]
The letter sent to Chosroes the Emperor of Persia by Prophet Muhammad - YouTube

No as I have clearly shown with sources it was a tribal leader which did so. Muslim sources confirm this. Also one death does not warrant an invasion and conquest of a whole region. Otherwise this completely justifies the IDF's invasion of Gaza as there were 3 deaths. Someone tearing up a letter does not warrant an invasion either.

You are reinforcing my view that Muhammad was psychological weak and his ego drove him to violence when it was harmed.

Your YT video has no sources. It can be dismissed for this reason alone.
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
FearGod said:
Muslims respected the Romans but they were arrogant and killed the ambassador of the prophet who was sent with the letter of peace and at that point the prophet decided to invade the Romans which was achieved later on by Khalid bin Al walid.

The Romans or Byzantines didn't kill any ambassador of Muhammad. You are making it up.

The Ghassanids were client kingdom of Byzantine empire, not a Byzantine province.

A client kingdom doesn't mean the Ghassanids were Byzantines.

But they (the Ghassanids) were allied to the Byzantines in the Byzantine-Persian war, so the Byzantines had to protect their ally.

If you understood foreign politics and foreign relation, if Muslims attack one kingdom that are allied to another, then it is no surprise that the Byzantines went to the defense of their ally - the Ghassanids.

So it is truly the Muslim Arabs who were the aggressors (and invaders) against the Byzantines in Syria. The Arabs went to war against the Byzantine empire, based on one death. That's a bit of an overkill.
 

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
Agreed.

But do you think the positive outweighs the negative?

islam I don't know, I think the positive wins in Christianity.

I think there are so many negatives that its hard to find enough positives to balance the scales,not just in past history but in the present too.

Some of the worst places on earth to live are dominated by a religion,Catholicism thrives in some of the poorest where contraception would greatly benefit the fight against HIV and other STDs and children that cannot be cared for even though contraception is the obvious route to go the psychological threat of hell prevents that so no I don't think it does outweigh the negatives.
 

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
Christianity certainly has it's skeletons. However it also has produced many of the major public school systems, unified the rabble of city states into formidable nations, built hundreds of hospitals, was crucial in founding most major western relief organizations, founded moral laws on the only possible foundation that could make them true to begin with, produced the most generous demographic on earth, and founded modern abstract science. I could go on forever but I only need to point out how many times we stopped tyranny from taking over the entire earth to show that whatever are faults have been have been made up for time after time. Which would you rather have 1. A group of people who burned a handful of witches in Salem but also stopped Hitler, the Kaiser, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, and the Japanese lunatics who committed the worst war crimes in history, and numerous genocides. Or a group so passive as to not judge a few witches, nor fascism, communism, Nazism, and tyranny, and genocide. I don't know about you but the inquisition's 2000 deaths over 400 years does not mean we should throw out the only world view by which men have any real rights at all. A few Crusades are not too high a price to pay for modern science is it? I would prefer to have the good without the bad of course but any system that has men it, will have evil in it. All in all and comparatively I would say Christianity's good versus evil ratio far outstrips any similar group by a long way.

Yes it certainly does have skeletons and not just in the past,giving credit for the defeat of our enemies to Christianity is a blinkered statement IMO.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Catholicism thrives in some of the poorest where contraception would greatly benefit the fight against HIV and other STDs and children that cannot be cared for even though contraception is the obvious route to go the psychological threat of hell prevents that so no I don't think it does outweigh the negatives.

That has been a complaint of mine before I joined here.

Agree whole hearted.


They do have a lot of help though, they are on the front line of ebola right now.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Was Islam spread by the sword?

No.

For example:

Spread of Islam in South Africa: [1]

Islam in South Africa is a minority religion, practiced by less than 1.5% of the total population, according to estimates[by whom?]. Islam in South Africa has grown in three phases. The first phase brought the earliest Muslims as part of the involuntary migration of slaves, political prisoners and political exiles from Africa and Asia (mainly from the Indonesian archipelago) that lasted from about 1652 to the mid-1800s. The second phase was the arrival of Indians as indentured laborers to work in the sugar-cane fields in Natal between 1860 and 1868, and again from 1874 to 1911. Of the approximately 176,000 Indians of all faiths who were transported to the Natal province, almost 7-10% of the first shipment were Muslims.
The third phase has been marked- post apartheid – by the wave of African Muslims that have arrived on the shores and borders of South Africa. Recent figures put the number at approximately at 75-100 000. Added to this are a considerable number of Muslims from the Indo-Pak subcontinent that have arrived as economic migrants.[1]Although, the majority of the Muslims are Sunni, some have been attracted towards theAhmadiyya sect, particularly in Cape Town.[2]

Islam in South Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Regards
 

outhouse

Atheistically
At the moment it can only get worse before it gets a chance to get better:(

If our species would learn from ancient mens mistakes, and stop the mythology right here and now, we could move forward at huge leaps and bounds. For the better.

As Neil Degrasse Tyson said, imagine how good it could be without fanaticism and fundamentalism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top