Was Islam spread by the sword?

[YmirGF]

I don't agree with you.

Regards

This doesn't exactly come as a shock, paarsurrey. I'd be far more shocked if you were honest and agreed. The simple fact is that throughout history Islamic states have almost exclusively been authoritarian, totalitarian regimes. It has only been in modern history where Islamic states have been forced to adopt slightly less rigid models to conform to the U.N. Human Rights conventions. Even then many Islamic countries do not have very good track records conforming to said conventions.

 

[Chev Chelios]

Why not hearing from a professional in the Jewish history .


[youtube]1OnArXdHQdc[/youtube]
The Golden Age of Spanish Jewry (Essential Lectures in Jewish History) Dr. Henry Abramson - YouTube

That is a poor rebuttal pal.

 

[paarsurrey]

Was Islam spread by the sword?

No.

For example:

Spread of Islam in Bhutan:

According to adherents.com Muslims constitute over 5% of the population [1] However the CIA factbook claims that Muslims are less than 1% in Bhutan.[2] In 2009, the Pew Research Center estimated that 1% of the population, or 7,000 people, were Muslims. Bhutan only recognizes Buddhism as a religion and Islam has no recognition.[3]

Miller, Tracy, ed. (October 2009), Mapping the Global Muslim Population: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Muslim Population (PDF), Pew Research Center, p. 31, retrieved 2009-10-08

Islam in Bhutan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

Such a cathegorical "no". What do you say about the history of Islam in India? Particularly of its contact with the Sikh?

 

[FearGod]

This doesn't exactly come as a shock, paarsurrey. I'd be far more shocked if you were honest and agreed. The simple fact is that throughout history Islamic states have almost exclusively been authoritarian, totalitarian regimes. It has only been in modern history where Islamic states have been forced to adopt slightly less rigid models to conform to the U.N. Human Rights conventions. Even then many Islamic countries do not have very good track records conforming to said conventions.

So it was like hell in the Andalusia before the creation of the U.N. :sarcastic

 

[FearGod]

That is a poor rebuttal pal.

Yes, you know much better than a Jewish professor in history.

 

[paarsurrey]

Such a cathegorical "no". What do you say about the history of Islam in India? Particularly of its contact with the Sikh?

You may be surprised to know that their founder Guru Baba Nanak was himself a Muslim and he converted to Islam peacefully from Hinduism.
He was a godly person and had direct communion with G-d himself. He had following in the Hindus also who are called Sikhs. The strife started in the time of Guru Gobind Singh, at a much later period.

Regards

 

[Stovepipe_Hat]

Despite the plagiarism and lies the book states about history.

Posting one-line answers to the opposing side isn't debate. It may get your "post count" up to 25,000 quickly, but it doesn't improve the quality of the forum. History and Copyright as we know it today didn't exist in antiquity.
~~:no:

 

[paarsurrey]

This doesn't exactly come as a shock, paarsurrey. I'd be far more shocked if you were honest and agreed. The simple fact is that throughout history Islamic states have almost exclusively been authoritarian, totalitarian regimes. It has only been in modern history where Islamic states have been forced to adopt slightly less rigid models to conform to the U.N. Human Rights conventions. Even then many Islamic countries do not have very good track records conforming to said conventions.

To discuss on this issue I started the following thread:
“Secular: not-Secular”
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/168472-secular-not-secular.html

And one is most welcome

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Posting one-line answers to whoever you disagree with isn't debate. It may get your "post count" up to 25,000 quickly, but it doesn't improve the quality of the forum. History and Copyright as we know it today didn't exist in antiquity.
~~:no:

He is much obsessed with history and thinks that reality is what the history recorded; that which history could not record due to its failings is not reality. If I am wrong he could correct me.

Thanks and regards

 

[LuisDantas]

You may be surprised to know that their founder Guru Baba Nanak was himself a Muslim and he converted to Islam peacefully from Hinduism.
He was a godly person and had direct communion with G-d himself. He had following in the Hindus also who are called Sikhs. The strife started in the time of Guru Gobind Singh, at a much later period.

Regards

That is indeed a surprising claim. Are you implying that the early Sikhs were being taught the Quran and somehow mistook it for the Guru Granth Sahib?

I don't think that is very likely.

In any case, even taking your claim at face value one still has to ask how peaceful was the situation with Guru Gobind Singh.

 

[LuisDantas]

To discuss on this issue I started the following thread:
“Secular: not-Secular”
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/168472-secular-not-secular.html

And one is most welcome

Regards

How would that be the same issue? Islamic regimes are neither secular nor the main alternative to secularism.

 

[Stovepipe_Hat]

...Disciples of Christ and the apostles did not use a sword, [because]...Christian[ity] ...accepted the Empire...
But Islam is only spread by the sword and to protect[s itself] by the sword

Was Islam spread by the sword?
Spread of Islam in Western Sahara, Africa... Trade developed further, and the territory may have been one of the routes for caravans, especially between Marrakesh and Tombouctou in Mali...In the 11th century, the Maqil Arabian tribes ...settled in Morocco

My earlier answer was simplistic. Christianity developed within the Roman empire, where Roman legions had already done all the preliminary swordwork.

Islam started in a period of international anarchy after the Romans were gone, so they had to fight their own battles. Not all Islamic expansions were militarized, especially after the first pulse in the 7th century. Indonesia converted peacefully, for instance. It's all relative, anyway. I think Islam has a larger "sword" element than most religions, but that doesn't mean it worships gratuitous violence.

 

[paarsurrey]

How would that be the same issue? Islamic regimes are neither secular nor the main alternative to secularism.

We will discuss the issue from the teachings of Quran/Islam/Muhammad; the regimes do things what supports their political agenda and sometimes or most of the time use/misuse religion for their own political ends. Religion has got nothing to do with politics.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Was Islam spread by the sword?

No.

For example:

Spread of Islam in Brunei:

Islam is Brunei's official religion, 64 percent of the population is Muslim.[1][2][3] mostly Sunnisof Malay origin who follow the Shafi school of Islamic law. Most of the other Muslim groups are Kedayans (converts from indigenous tribal groups) and Chinese converts.[4]

Islam was adopted in the 15th century when a Malay Muslim was installed as sultan. The sultan traditionally was responsible for upholding Islamic traditions, although the responsibility was usually delegated to appointed officials.

Since the 1930s sultans have used rising oil revenues to provide an extensive social welfare system and promote Islam, including subsidizing the Hajj, building mosques, and expanding the Department of Religious Affairs.

Islam in Brunei - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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

Regards

 

[Stovepipe_Hat]

He is much obsessed with history and thinks that reality is what the history recorded; that which history could not record due to its failings is not reality...

History comes with points of view, and different countries write different histories. There is a lot that is not known about the past. There are a lot of facts that are known, however, with documents from the period. The 7th century isn't too important today. It was a while ago. The OP's question is about history, though, so it has to be taken up to answer it.
~

 

[paarsurrey]

That is indeed a surprising claim. Are you implying that the early Sikhs were being taught the Quran and somehow mistook it for the Guru Granth Sahib?

I don't think that is very likely.

In any case, even taking your claim at face value one still has to ask how peaceful was the situation with Guru Gobind Singh.

As I told Baba Guru Nanak got converted to Islam from Hinduism and was a Muslim saint. He had followings in the Muslims as well as in Hindus. Baba Guru Nanak was as peaceful and tolerant as Muslim saint should be. When he died his Sikh followers remained Monotheists but did not became Muslim.

The strife was between a Muslim Emperor, due to political differences which has got nothing to do with Quran/Islam/Muhammad.

Regards

 

[outhouse]

Posting one-line answers to the opposing side isn't debate.

Everyone here is on their own footing, and is treated accordingly

Its why I give you the time and give you detailed replies.


Others 99% of the time, I already know the answer they will give.

It may get your "post count" up to 25,000 quickly

meaningless.

but it doesn't improve the quality of the forum

Either do people who refuse to debate at all, there is one in this thread who is proselytizing only.

But since you area new here you have no clue at all.

History and Copyright as we know it today didn't exist in antiquity.

Agreed.

Does that change the fact that Israelites Plagiarized Canaanite mythology and Mesopotamian mythology??

Does that change the fact Christianity plagiarized Judaism?


Does that change the fact islam plagiarized both??

 

[outhouse]

. If I am wrong he could correct me.

I have tried countless times you refuse all credible knowledge, and only proselytize unsubstantiated faith, and flat refuse to answer any questions what so ever.

 

[LuisDantas]

We will discuss the issue from the teachings of Quran/Islam/Muhammad; the regimes do things what supports their political agenda and sometimes or most of the time use/misuse religion for their own political ends. Religion has got nothing to do with politics.

Regards

I thought Muslims aimed for a Islamic State? A caliphate? Support for Sharia Law?

And that there was a tax for non-Muslims in Muslim states?