Was Islam spread by the sword?

[Chev Chelios]

Killing for defense, but killing innocents is of course a great sin.

First - I am glad you agree that you misquoted your own book

Second - 'defensive' is open to interpretation and many things can be deemed as an attack. For example, Islamic theology stipulates that blasphemy is a crime punishable by death - it is seen as an attack on Islam. Therefore, by merely critiquing this belief system a person can be seen as having made an act of aggression on Islam which therefore gives the Moslem the right to react. Similarly, Shariah law mandates that an apostate who prosletyses their new faith in 'Islamic territory' is also attacking the 'religion of peace 'and so should also be executed.

Indeed, Muhammad himself started wars, such as those on the Romans. He did this by sending an ultimatum that they should accept Islam or be destroyed - the Byzantines then reacted to this threat by killing the messenger of Muhammad. Muhammad then attacks. So we see that it was Muhammad who started the war – it is astonishing that Moslems think Muhammad was allowed to threaten people with extinction and not expect them to react!

If we look at Islam’s scripture we see that Verse 9:29 of the Koran (which abrogates ‘let there be no compulsion in religion') also makes a mockery of the claim that Islam allows only for defensive acts.

So in short - this idea that Islam only allows violence in a defensive context is utter nonsense.

 

[outhouse]

I disagree with this,there are something like 1.6 billion Muslims in the world,if they were all fighting for Hamas we would be ok with a wide brush,they aren't though so.

Agreed.

But is it the factual required fanaticism and fundamentalism that enables this primitive and barbaric behavior?

If the religion requires everyone to be two steps up the ladder away from reality, taking that third step into terrorism is much easier.


They ALL are required to be literalist like our YEC, which all refuse credible knowledge over mythology.

 

[Chev Chelios]

Ambiguous religious texts are a great catalyst for war massacres and subjugation but not all use them for that purpose,proselytising religions are very open to it though IMO.

There is no ambiguity in some of the Korans 'later' violent verses.

 

[1robin]

There is no ambiguity in some of the Korans 'later' violent verses.

Not only are they minus the ambiguity they abrogate the earlier peaceful verses when Muhammad had no army and could not tyrannize anyone.

 

[England my lionheart]

Agreed.

But is it the factual required fanaticism and fundamentalism that enables this primitive and barbaric behavior?

If the religion requires everyone to be two steps up the ladder away from reality, taking that third step into terrorism is much easier.


They ALL are required to be literalist like our YEC, which all refuse credible knowledge over mythology.

I agree with the two steps,its an open door for anything,credible knowledge goes out of the window even one step up.

 

[England my lionheart]

There is no ambiguity in some of the Korans 'later' violent verses.

There is violence for sure,not just physical violence though.

 

[paarsurrey]

Was Islam spread by the sword?

No.

For example:

Spread of Islam in Cambodia: [1]

Islam is the religion of a majority of the Cham (also called Khmer Islam) and Malay minorities in Cambodia. According to Po Dharma, there were 150,000 to 200,000 Muslims in Cambodia as late as 1975. Persecution under the Khmer Rouge eroded their numbers, however, and by the late 1980s they probably had not regained their former strength. In 2009, the Pew Research Center estimated that 1.6% of the population, or 236,000 people were Muslims.[1] All of the Cham Muslims areSunnis[citation needed] of the Shafi'i school.[citation needed]. Po Dharma divides the Muslim Cham in Cambodia into a traditionalist branch and an orthodox branch.

Background of Early Islam[edit]

The Cham Muslims trace their ancestry to one of the father-in-laws of Prophet Muhammad,[2] who is Jahsh, the father of Zaynab bint Jahsh. It was in the wake of many Sahabas who arrived in Indo-Chin in 617-18 from Abyssinia by sea route.

Islam in Cambodia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Regards

 

[Chev Chelios]

Not only are they minus the ambiguity they abrogate the earlier peaceful verses when Muhammad had no army and could not tyrannize anyone.

That is correct if we accept the idea of abrogation in Islam - and we have no reason not to do so.

 

[Chev Chelios]

There is violence for sure,not just physical violence though.

What do you mean?

 

[Chev Chelios]

I disagree with this,there are something like 1.6 billion Muslims in the world,if they were all fighting for Hamas we would be ok with a wide brush,they aren't though so.

I find this type of argument extremely un-helpful in understanding Islam and the worldwide violence that continually follows it. The suggestion that because most Moslems do not act violently does not mean Islam itself doesn’t support violence – this is a non sequitur because there is an inherent disconnect at work here. A widely held belief or practice does not guarantee the belief or practice to be correct.

It is not difficult to envisage that many Moslems may actually agree with acts of violence but may not wish to partake in these acts themselves for a number of reasons such as the sacrifices required, the punishment they will receive for breaking the law or having other priorities such as their work, raising a family etc. Just upping sticks to join groups like ISIS is easier said than done. See, we know that most Moslems accept Islam permits polygamy for instance, however most do not undertake it due to various reasons. So we see that an absence of a given behavior cannot determine what Islam permits and does not permit and just because most Moslems subscribe to baseline human behaviour of not wishing to kill people does not mean those people do not share the end goals of those that do engage in violence or that they see such violence as justifiable.

Indeed, we know this to be true because this exact thing has been shown time and time again with study after study showing that whilst technically a minority, many many Moslems support Islamism. For example, a Gallup poll, the largest ever conducted on Moslems, used a scale of 1 – 5. 1 = Moslems thought the 9/11 attacks were completely unjustified, 5 = Moslems thought the attacks were completely justified. 7% were 5’s which, if we extrapolate this to 1.6 billion means 80 million Moslems thought 9/11 was justified! But more worryingly, only 63% were 1’s which means that 37% of Moslems thought that 9/11 & similar attacks were in some way JUSTIFIED! 37% of 1.6 billion = 592 million Moslems!!!

Islamic extremism has the support of millions of Moslems make no mistake about it and this helps explain why we see the same thing again and again. Those that say these’ extremists’ are pushing there own narrative and not those found in Islam’s divine texts never can explain that all these Jihadist’s the world over have pretty much the same goal – establishing Islamic rule in accordance with the fundamental prescriptions of the faith. This fact is always lost on people – that whether the extremism is in Africa, the Middle East or Asia it always looks the same as is their world view.

The ‘moderate’ Moslem offers me no comfort for the facts are that in 1400 years they have never dealt with this ‘minority' and history tells us it is always the ‘extreme’ fraction which dictates the agenda - it is the proverbial 'tail that wags the dog'. Do I think all Moslems are violent? Clearly not, but my argument is this doesn’t mean Islam itself does not allow for violence and that ultimately it is not really helpful anyway. Did the ‘moderate’ Moslem make any difference to the formation of ISIS, will they be the ones to stop it? Do they make any difference to all those literally thousands and thousands continually being slaughtered the world over each and every year in the name of Islam? No – they don’t, they never have and I am trying to understand why.

 

[England my lionheart]

Was Islam spread by the sword?

No.

For example:

Spread of Islam in Cambodia: [1]

Islam is the religion of a majority of the Cham (also called Khmer Islam) and Malay minorities in Cambodia. According to Po Dharma, there were 150,000 to 200,000 Muslims in Cambodia as late as 1975. Persecution under the Khmer Rouge eroded their numbers, however, and by the late 1980s they probably had not regained their former strength. In 2009, the Pew Research Center estimated that 1.6% of the population, or 236,000 people were Muslims.[1] All of the Cham Muslims areSunnis[citation needed] of the Shafi'i school.[citation needed]. Po Dharma divides the Muslim Cham in Cambodia into a traditionalist branch and an orthodox branch.

Background of Early Islam[edit]

The Cham Muslims trace their ancestry to one of the father-in-laws of Prophet Muhammad,[2] who is Jahsh, the father of Zaynab bint Jahsh. It was in the wake of many Sahabas who arrived in Indo-Chin in 617-18 from Abyssinia by sea route.

Islam in Cambodia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Regards

I think Islams time of spreading by the sword ended with their defeat at Poitiers by Charles Martel,it failed to work then just as it fails now,this depends on atwhich Islam you follow though,even the other ways aren't doing too well other than to procreate where it is spreading without doubt,Islam isn't alone in this though.

 

[outhouse]

I find this type of argument extremely un-helpful

Yet it will reduce your credibility to not to address the truth in context.

Most muslims are peaceful, but a few steps out of touch with reality which is required, is how we address this logically.


While we cannot effect the minds of the parents who have been brainwashed since birth, we attack the huge problem the same way we did it here with YEC.

We educate the children to use reason and logic, and evolve the process forward.

If we can get them to see that 1 + 1 does not equal 387 as stated by the koran, we can chip away at fanaticism.

Unfortunately it will not be quick enough to effect our lifetime

 

[England my lionheart]

I find this type of argument extremely un-helpful in understanding Islam and the worldwide violence that continually follows it. The suggestion that because most Moslems do not act violently does not mean Islam itself doesn’t support violence – this is a non sequitur because there is an inherent disconnect at work here. A widely held belief or practice does not guarantee the belief or practice to be correct.

It is not difficult to envisage that many Moslems may actually agree with acts of violence but may not wish to partake in these acts themselves for a number of reasons such as the sacrifices required, the punishment they will receive for breaking the law or having other priorities such as their work, raising a family etc. Just upping sticks to join groups like ISIS is easier said than done. See, we know that most Moslems accept Islam permits polygamy for instance, however most do not undertake it due to various reasons. So we see that an absence of a given behavior cannot determine what Islam permits and does not permit and just because most Moslems subscribe to baseline human behaviour of not wishing to kill people does not mean those people do not share the end goals of those that do engage in violence or that they see such violence as justifiable.

Indeed, we know this to be true because this exact thing has been shown time and time again with study after study showing that whilst technically a minority, many many Moslems support Islamism. For example, a Gallup poll, the largest ever conducted on Moslems, used a scale of 1 – 5. 1 = Moslems thought the 9/11 attacks were completely unjustified, 5 = Moslems thought the attacks were completely justified. 7% were 5’s which, if we extrapolate this to 1.6 billion means 80 million Moslems thought 9/11 was justified! But more worryingly, only 63% were 1’s which means that 37% of Moslems thought that 9/11 & similar attacks were in some way JUSTIFIED! 37% of 1.6 billion = 592 million Moslems!!!

Islamic extremism has the support of millions of Moslems make no mistake about it and this helps explain why we see the same thing again and again. Those that say these’ extremists’ are pushing there own narrative and not those found in Islam’s divine texts never can explain that all these Jihadist’s the world over have pretty much the same goal – establishing Islamic rule in accordance with the fundamental prescriptions of the faith. This fact is always lost on people – that whether the extremism is in Africa, the Middle East or Asia it always looks the same as is their world view.

The ‘moderate’ Moslem offers me no comfort for the facts are that in 1400 years they have never dealt with this ‘minority' and history tells us it is always the ‘extreme’ fraction which dictates the agenda - it is the proverbial 'tail that wags the dog'. Do I think all Moslems are violent? Clearly not, but my argument is this doesn’t mean Islam itself does not allow for violence and that ultimately it is not really helpful anyway. Did the ‘moderate’ Moslem make any difference to the formation of ISIS, will they be the ones to stop it? Do they make any difference to all those literally thousands and thousands continually being slaughtered the world over each and every year in the name of Islam? No – they don’t, they never have and I am trying to understand why.

I already said that religion is a great catalyst for violence,books and mythology of proselytising religions seem to produce the most violence imo

 

[Shad]

If we look at Islam’s scripture we see that Verse 9:29 of the Koran (which abrogates ‘let there be no compulsion in religion') also makes a mockery of the claim that Islam allows only for defensive acts.

So in short - this idea that Islam only allows violence in a defensive context is utter nonsense.

There are actually at least 6 interpretations of 2:256 but only one of these is used in modern times. Everyone seems to ignore previous views as the modern interpretation is Western friendly and fits within a secular society. However the other interpretations are anything but friendly.

1. The verse is Meccan which has been abrogated in favour of Medina verses of waging holy war on infidels.

2. The verse is only historically applied to one situation in Medina. Muslims wanted their children(adults) to convert to Islam and tried by force. The verse was only for this situation and this one only.

3. This verse only applied to Dhimmis. It did not apply to Muslims or non-Muslims considered to not be Dhimmis such as polytheists. Also since Dhimmis were already subjugated it has no effect on spreading Islam as a political system in which humanity is ruled by the sovereignty of Muslims.

4. The verse means Allah does not use compulsion, free will and all. However this does not mean humans can not use compulsion. This interpretation also uses parts of #3 in regards to Dhimmis rights.

5. It is impossible to force true belief. You can force people to act as believers, to conform as an external display but never as an internal belief. However external changes can be forced in terms of social pressure and society in general. Considering Muslim societies at the time were religious including the political structure compulsion is impossible to avoid without leaving Muslim societies as a whole. By separating a person between external and internal this allowed people to force cultural assimilation upon non-Muslim. Also forced conversion could be used on those who are not Dhimmis or can never be Dhimmis such as polytheists. Forced conversion and cultural assimilation were seen as positive in these cases as future generations could have genuine true belief. One can look at cultural assimilation of immigrants as an example of how cultural assimilation works. The first generations hold to their ethnic and religious traditions. The next generations mix this tradition with local culture. Further on generations become more and more part of the local culture rather than a foreign one. This is repeated throughout history and to be frank it works.

6. The verse only applied to Muslims. Islam being the "true" religion one could not force conversion to a falsehood. One could not renounce the "truth" that is Islam. This carries over into apostasy

The issue today is that modern secular ideas separate religion from the state. However Islamic culture and politics is incapable of this while still being considered Islamic. It is impossible to separate religion from Islamic systems as the system itself is based on religion or part of the religion itself. The modern interpration is merely lip service to appeal to our modern ideas of secularism, religion, politics and law. One need only look at history to see this lip service is a recent development and was not the statue-quo in the past. Nor is this interpretation a universal since there are more than 6 interpretations over the centuries. Islamists also counter this modern interpretation with their own actions, views and speeches in the media. Islamists tend to go after other Muslims first due to the view that they are following a foreign system. Their goal is to restore the systems of Islam over what is seen as foreign culture and ideas clumped into the label secular or secularism.

 

[Chev Chelios]

There are actually at least 6 interpretations of 2:256 but only one of these is used in modern times. Everyone seems to ignore previous views as the modern interpretation is Western friendly and fits within a secular society. However the other interpretations are anything but friendly.

1. The verse is Meccan which has been abrogated in favour of Medina verses of waging holy war on infidels.

2. The verse is only historically applied to one situation in Medina. Muslims wanted their children(adults) to convert to Islam and tried by force. The verse was only for this situation and this one only.

3. This verse only applied to Dhimmis. It did not apply to Muslims or non-Muslims considered to not be Dhimmis such as polytheists. Also since Dhimmis were already subjugated it has no effect on spreading Islam as a political system in which humanity is ruled by the sovereignty of Muslims.

4. The verse means Allah does not use compulsion, free will and all. However this does not mean humans can not use compulsion. This interpretation also uses parts of #3 in regards to Dhimmis rights.

5. It is impossible to force true belief. You can force people to act as believers, to conform as an external display but never as an internal belief. However external changes can be forced in terms of social pressure and society in general. Considering Muslim societies at the time were religious including the political structure compulsion is impossible to avoid without leaving Muslim societies as a whole. By separating a person between external and internal this allowed people to force cultural assimilation upon non-Muslim. Also forced conversion could be used on those who are not Dhimmis or can never be Dhimmis such as polytheists. Forced conversion and cultural assimilation were seen as positive in these cases as future generations could have genuine true belief. One can look at cultural assimilation of immigrants as an example of how cultural assimilation works. The first generations hold to their ethnic and religious traditions. The next generations mix this tradition with local culture. Further on generations become more and more part of the local culture rather than a foreign one. This is repeated throughout history and to be frank it works.

6. The verse only applied to Muslims. Islam being the "true" religion one could not force conversion to a falsehood. One could not renounce the "truth" that is Islam. This carries over into apostasy

The issue today is that modern secular ideas separate religion from the state. However Islamic culture and politics is incapable of this while still being considered Islamic. It is impossible to separate religion from Islamic systems as the system itself is based on religion or part of the religion itself. The modern interpration is merely lip service to appeal to our modern ideas of secularism, religion, politics and law. One need only look at history to see this lip service is a recent development and was not the statue-quo in the past. Nor is this interpretation a universal since there are more than 6 interpretations over the centuries. Islamists also counter this modern interpretation with their own actions, views and speeches in the media. Islamists tend to go after other Muslims first due to the view that they are following a foreign system. Their goal is to restore the systems of Islam over what is seen as foreign culture and ideas clumped into the label secular or secularism.

That was a very informative post and contains ideas/material I was unfamiliar with. I have debated Moslems many times regarding this verse which they continually claim shows Islam affords religious freedom - my main argument is that it is simply abrogated by later verses. I had never looked at the verse in much more detail than that so I do thank you for increasing my understanding of it and I look forward to any rebuttals from the Moslem posters.

The fact is, Islam clearly contradicts this verse anyway by the fact that death for apostasy is a well established precept in Islamic theology and so I fail to see how these 2 can be reconciled.

I also agree with your suggestion that Islam does not subscribe to the paradigm of a separation of Church and state - Parsurrey started a thread on this topic (although it is poorly titled) due to us debating it. I argue that Islam clearly puts in a framework of political governance so that it goes beyond merely taking care of the spiritual life of the individual - it does make clear stipulations for how society itself should be run so that it runs in accordance with Islam. Simply put - secularist states will mean that what Allah deems unlawful will have been made lawful which sort of defeats the entire point of Islam.

 

[FearGod]

First - I am glad you agree that you misquoted your own book.

Where did i misquote my own book ?
Would you pls clarify ?

Second - 'defensive' is open to interpretation and many things can be deemed as an attack. For example, Islamic theology stipulates that blasphemy is a crime punishable by death - it is seen as an attack on Islam. Therefore, by merely critiquing this belief system a person can be seen as having made an act of aggression on Islam which therefore gives the Moslem the right to react. Similarly, Shariah law mandates that an apostate who prosletyses their new faith in 'Islamic territory' is also attacking the 'religion of peace 'and so should also be executed.

Not true, history proves you wrong, One example is the scientist Muhammad Ibn Zakaria Razi, he wrote against the prophet and the quran and still respected till our days for his achievements in science regardless of his religious thoughts.

Indeed, Muhammad himself started wars, such as those on the Romans. He did this by sending an ultimatum that they should accept Islam or be destroyed - the Byzantines then reacted to this threat by killing the messenger of Muhammad. Muhammad then attacks. So we see that it was Muhammad who started the war – it is astonishing that Moslems think Muhammad was allowed to threaten people with extinction and not expect them to react!

No, not true, his messages was a peaceful ones.

Holy Prophet Muhammad’s Letters to various Kings | The Muslim Times

If we look at Islam’s scripture we see that Verse 9:29 of the Koran (which abrogates ‘let there be no compulsion in religion') also makes a mockery of the claim that Islam allows only for defensive acts.

So in short - this idea that Islam only allows violence in a defensive context is utter nonsense.

You are only ignorant about Islam, read some books if you want to know the truth, if not then you can keep in searching for the anti Islam websites.

 

[Shad]

That was a very informative post and contains ideas/material I was unfamiliar with. I have debated Moslems many times regarding this verse which they continually claim shows Islam affords religious freedom - my main argument is that it is simply abrogated by later verses. I had never looked at the verse in much more detail than that so I do thank you for increasing my understanding of it and I look forward to any rebuttals from the Moslem posters.

The fact is, Islam clearly contradicts this verse anyway by the fact that death for apostasy is a well established precept in Islamic theology and so I fail to see how these 2 can be reconciled.

I also agree with your suggestion that Islam does not subscribe to the paradigm of a separation of Church and state - Parsurrey started a thread on this topic (although it is poorly titled) due to us debating it. I argue that Islam clearly puts in a framework of political governance so that it goes beyond merely taking care of the spiritual life of the individual - it does make clear stipulations for how society itself should be run so that it runs in accordance with Islam. Simply put - secularist states will mean that what Allah deems unlawful will have been made lawful which sort of defeats the entire point of Islam.

The real issue is modern scholars rarely bring up past exegesis' and create a sort of nostalgic view of the past. While parts of this view are fact much of it is a post-modern interpretation rather than one of within the relevant time frame. If other views are omitted no one will raise questions and no one learns about these other views. Modern interpretation become traditional views due to ignorance rather than education. If people want to follow a secular or peaceful version of Islam that is fine by me, I welcome it. However many put forward the idea that this form is the status-quo for centuries when in fact it only started in the 1900-1940.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Where did i misquote my own book ?
Would you pls clarify ?



Not true, history proves you wrong, One example is the scientist Muhammad Ibn Zakaria Razi, he wrote against the prophet and the quran and still respected till our days for his achievements in science regardless of his religious thoughts.

No, not true, his messages was a peaceful ones.

Holy Prophet Muhammad’s Letters to various Kings | The Muslim Times



You are only ignorant about Islam, read some books if you want to know the truth, if not then you can keep in searching for the anti Islam websites.

Why do you close your mind
All these facts in front of you
Says that Islam was spread by the sword
And you say Islam was spread by the sword
And this is the
1. verses from the Koran words terrorism
2-verses from the Koran to fight
3. wars and conquests of Mohammed the Prophet of Islam
4. certificate of Nations and civilizations of Muslim occupation
5. acts of the successors of Muhammad
6. the actions of the Muslims after Muhammad's death
7. Islamic history and other books
What we see today from acts of terrorism, killings, displacement and injustice practiced by Muslims terrorists
I think you shut your mind stone Mecca oops black stone

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Razi is not Arabic
Name of an Assyrian language
If you do not know this
Arabs ask what is the meaning of Al-Razi
Is it Arabic word
Waiting for you to tell you the meaning of the word Razi
And Zakariya is the name of the Hebrew Jew

 

[Godobeyer]

I think Islams time of spreading by the sword ended with their defeat at Poitiers by Charles Martel,it failed to work then just.0 as it fails now,this depends on atwhich Islam you follow though,even the other ways aren't doing too well other than to procreate where it is spreading without doubt,Islam isn't alone in this though.

was not, once of time in history , Christainity spread by sword ?

don't not blame me that i am stuck in relative with your avatar to "Christainity spread by sword"

in the past , which one is spread by sword more than the other , the Islam or Christianity ?