Was Islam spread by the sword?

[paarsurrey]

Was Islam spread by the sword?

No.

For example:

Spread of Islam in Tibet:

The Tibetan Muslims, also known as the Kachee (Tibetan: ཀ་ཆེ་, Wylie: ka-che; also spelled Kache), form a small minority in Tibet. Despite being Muslim, they are officially recognized as Tibetans by the government of the People's Republic of China, unlike the Hui Muslims, who are separately recognized. The Tibetan word Kachee literally meansKashmiri and Kashmir was known as Kachee Yul (Yul means Country).

Ancestry[edit]

Generally speaking, the Tibetan Muslims are unique in the fact that they are largely of Kashmiri as well asPersian/Arab/Turkic descent through the patrilineal lineage and also often descendants of native Tibetans through thematrilineal lineage, although the reverse is not uncommon. Thus, many of them display a mixture of Indo-Iranian andindigenous Tibetan facial features.

History[edit]

The appearance of the first Muslims in Tibet has been lost in the mists of time, although variants of the names of Tibet can be found in Arabic history books.

During the reign of the Ummayad Caliph Umar bin Abdul Aziz, a delegation from Tibet and China requested him to send Islamic missionaries to their countries, and Salah bin Abdullah Hanafi was sent to Tibet. Between the eighth and ninth centuries, the Abbasid rulers of Baghdad maintained relations with Tibet. However, there was little proselytisation among the missionaries at first, although many of them decided to settle in Tibet and marry Tibetan women.

In 710-720,during the reign of Me Agtsom the Arabs, who now had more of a presence in China, started to appear in Tibet and were allied with them along with the Eastern Turksagainst the Chinese. During the reign of Sadnalegs (799-815), there was a protracted war with Arab powers to the West. It appears that Tibetans captured a number of Arab troops and pressed them into service on the Eastern frontier in 801. Tibetans were active as far West as Samarkand and Kabul. Arab forces began to gain the upper hand, and the Tibetan governor of Kabul submitted to the Arabs and became a Muslim about 812 or 815 [1]

Balti people[edit]

Main article: Balti people

The Balti people of Baltistan in Pakistan and Kargil are descendants of Tibetan Buddhists who mostly converted to Shia Islam, with a Sunni minority. Their Balti language is highly archaic and conservative and closer to Classical Tibetan than other Tibetan languages.

Tibetan Muslims - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Regards

 

[outhouse]

Do you remember the topic's OP?

.

Nope.

he is allowed to proselytize us

 

[paarsurrey]

Originally Posted by paarsurrey
Do you mean wars for not spreading religion are legitimate???!!!

Certainly can be.

Kindly mention those purposes/points for which wars could be fought very reasonably and legitimately, other than for the purpose of conversion of religion.

Please quote from sources, if possible.

Regards

 

[1robin]

Kindly mention those purposes/points for which wars could be fought very reasonably and legitimately, other than for the purpose of conversion of religion.

Please quote from sources, if possible.

Regards

WW1 and WW2 on the allied side. What sources do you mean? Who's the objective justification standard for the world? I said some are, you must show all aren't, to have a contention.

You asked one weird question. Anyone who defends their homes against an aggressor without a cause would be justified. That would probably amount to 40% of the thousands of wars or battles ever fought. Even strange wars like the US civil war have god justifications on both sides. Maybe you mean wars are tragic. They are but are at times necessary. Maybe give me more context.

 

[icehorse]

How about a reset here folks. This thread is about: "Was Islam Spread by the Sword?"

We could create separate threads:
- "Was Christianity Spread by the Sword?" or
- "Why do people fight wars? or
- "Was Jainism spread by the Sword"

Different threads.

I'm bringing up the Hindu genocide again because various historians have called it "the largest genocide in history". And it seems pretty clear to me that the Muslim invaders were absolutely spreading Islam.

 

[1robin]

How about a reset here folks. This thread is about: "Was Islam Spread by the Sword?"

We could create separate threads:
- "Was Christianity Spread by the Sword?" or
- "Why do people fight wars? or
- "Was Jainism spread by the Sword"

Different threads.

I'm bringing up the Hindu genocide again because various historians have called it "the largest genocide in history". And it seems pretty clear to me that the Muslim invaders were absolutely spreading Islam.

How about were swords spread by the sword?

I will suspend my current tact but if responded to I suspend my suspension.

 

[outhouse]

How about were swords spread by the sword?

.

He would argue that to because muhammad liked swords

 

[1robin]

He would argue that to because muhammad liked swords

Down with all doctrines that require kitchen utensils to propagate. That is like the opposite to up the irons, that iron maiden fans yell. Sorry it's late and I am bored.

 

[gnostic]

Kindly mention those purposes/points for which wars could be fought very reasonably and legitimately, other than for the purpose of conversion of religion.

When Muslim Arabs invaded the Byzantine Syria and Persia, after Muhammad's death in the 7th century, that wasn't legitimate wars. The wars and conquests weren't for appropriate legally or politically justified.

When Islam and the growing Arabic empire spreading from Egypt through North Africa to the Iberian Peninsula (Spain & Portugal), that weren't legit as well.

But you want to talk of justification of wars of without religious context.

There are never just "one" reason for war; the world is never in black-and-white because the world of politics and foreign relations are and have always being complex, even for religious wars, or for that matter, any wars or invasions involving the series of "Islamic " empires.

I have often stated that in the matter of politics and of wars, story have more than one side, and there could by any of the myriad of reasons that cause.

You have previously selected 3 examples (the world wars & the wars against native Americans), which had nothing to do wars for or against religion. Looking at the world wars, there are no just "one" single reason for how the wars started; there were many reasons, and it wasn't about whether if the wars began were "just?" or "legitimate?" or "reasonable?", because the reasons for wars are complex.

If you look at WW1 for instance, it started out with the assassination of then Archduke of Austria-Hungary, by the Serbians, which led to series of chain-reactions of events that cause the war to be fought globally. Austro-Hungarian empire wanted to attack and punish Serbia for the assassination, but the Germans, their ally instead attack Belgium and Luxembourg, and later France, for no apparent reason. Russia was pulled into the war because it sided with Serbia. The war pulled many other countries into the wars, including Great Britain, the Ottoman Empire, and even Japan, depending on which sides the countries took. The U.S. didn't get involved in the wars till German submarines refused to heed the U.S. repeated warnings, not to attack civilian ships in the Atlantic, which included American deaths.

Why did Serbia have the Austrian-Hungarian archduke assassinated?
Was Austria good or evil/corrupted? Was Serbia good or evil/corrupted?
Did Austria-Hungary have the rights to attack Serbia for the assassination?
Why did Germany attack neutral and peaceful countries like Belgium and Luxembourg?
Did other countries have the rights to side with one side or the other?
Was the U.S. in the right in joining the war?
​

There are so many different reasons why the wars happen, that it is not easy to fathom one single reason for the war, or why other countries got involved in WW1. How do you find what is legit or reasonable in a war as complex as the World War 1?

To me, it is a silly question (yours) to ask, plus it has nothing to do with the thread's topic.

Muslims, such as yourself, often see that all wars initiated by past caliphs or sultans of Islamic empires or kingdoms, to be justified, and often blaming the other (non-Muslim) sides, are just blinding yourselves by the biased propaganda that Muslims have created for themselves. You (not just "you "personally, but "you" as in group(s) of Muslims) often refused to see the other sides of the war or politics.

 

[Scimitar]

When Muslim Arabs invaded the Byzantine Syria and Persia, after Muhammad's death in the 7th century, that wasn't legitimate wars. The wars and conquests weren't for appropriate legally or politically justified.

You are talking wet my friend:

The spread of the Islamic empire was largely due political upheavals occurring outside of Arabia.

The Muslim triumphs in the Near East can be partly accounted for by the long series of wars between the Byzantine and Persian empires. Earlier
Byzantine victories had left both sides exhausted and open to conquest.
Moreover, the inhabitants of Syria and Egypt, alienated by religious dissent
and resenting the attempts of the Byzantine Empire to impose Christianity on
the population, were eager to be free of Byzantine rule.

In the year 636, Arab armies conquered Syria. The Muslims then won Iraq from the Persians and, within ten years after Muhammad's death, subdued Persia itself. The greater part of Egypt fell with little resistance in 640 and the rest shortly afterward. By the end of the reigns of the first four caliphs, Islam had vastly increased its territory in the Near East and Africa.

The new conquests of Islam were governed with remarkable efficiency and
flexibility. The centralization of authority typical of military organization
aided in the incorporation of new peoples. Unbelievers in the conquered
territories became increasingly interested in the new religion and accepted
Islam in great numbers. In addition to the obvious power of the religious
message of Islam, the imposition of a personal tax on all non-Muslims
encouraged many to become converts. (Although the tax was no more than what the Muslims paid already) Contrary to exaggerated accounts in
western Europe of the forceful imposition of Islam upon conquered peoples,
Jews and Christians outside of Arabia enjoyed toleration because they
worshiped the same God as the Muslims; many non-Muslims participated in the
Islamic state and prospered financially and socially.

Islam was and remains one the most effective religions in removing
barriers of race and nationality. Apart from a certain privileged position
allowed Arabs, distinctions were mostly those of economic rank in the early
days of conquest. The new religion converted and embraced peoples of many
colors and cultures. This egalitarian feature of Islam undoubtedy aided its
expansion.

Islam, The Spread Of Islam

Scimi

 

[paarsurrey]

Was Islam spread by the sword?

No.

For example:

Spread of Islam in East Timor:

The majority of the population of East Timor is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is the dominant religious institution.[1] There are also small Protestant and Sunni Muslim communities.[1]

The Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the Government generally respects this right in practice.[1] Societal abuses or discrimination based on religious belief or practice occur, but they are relatively infrequent.[1]

Islam[edit]

Islam is a minority religion in East Timor. The US State Department and the CIA World Factbook estimate that Muslims make up 1% of the population.[9] East Timor's first prime minister, Mari Alkatiri is a Sunni Muslim.

Freedom of religion in East Timor[edit]

The Constitution of East Timor provides for freedom of religion, and the Government generally respected this right in practice. There were minimal reports of societal abuses or discrimination based on religious belief or practice.

Political influence[edit]

After assuming the office of Prime Minister in July 2006, José Ramos-Horta repeatedly emphasized the importance of government consultation with the Catholic Church on all major decisions; however, members of Protestant churches and the Islamic community also have some political influence and have held high positions in the executive branch of government, the military, and the National Parliament.

Societal abuses and discrimination[edit]
There were minimal reports of societal abuses or discrimination based on religious belief or practice.

The Catholic Church is the dominant religious institution, and its priests and bishops are accorded the highest respect in local society. Attitudes toward the small Protestant and Muslim communities generally are friendly in the capital of Dili, despite the past association of these groups with the occupying Indonesian forces. Outside of the capital, non-Catholic religious groups sometimes have been viewed with suspicion.

Non-Catholic Christian groups operating in the countryside also reported that their ministries sometimes encountered hostility. These tensions at times escalated into incidents of harassment and low-level violence, primarily in more remote communities in the districts. According to Protestant leaders, individuals converting from Catholicism to Protestantism were subject to harassment by family members and neighbors, and in some cases clergy and missionaries were threatened or assaulted.

In several instances village leaders refused to allow missionaries to proselytize in their villages, and in at least one case a Protestant group was unable to build a chapel because of opposition from neighbors and local officials. Most Protestant leaders reported that Catholic Church officials and government authorities were helpful in resolving disputes and conflicts when they occurred.

Religion in East Timor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Regards.

 

[paarsurrey]

WW1 and WW2 on the allied side. What sources do you mean? Who's the objective justification standard for the world? I said some are, you must show all aren't, to have a contention.

You asked one weird question. Anyone who defends their homes against an aggressor without a cause would be justified. That would probably amount to 40% of the thousands of wars or battles ever fought. Even strange wars like the US civil war have god justifications on both sides. Maybe you mean wars are tragic. They are but are at times necessary. Maybe give me more context.

Thanks and regards

 

[paarsurrey]

When Muslim Arabs invaded the Byzantine Syria and Persia, after Muhammad's death in the 7th century, that wasn't legitimate wars. The wars and conquests weren't for appropriate legally or politically justified.

When Islam and the growing Arabic empire spreading from Egypt through North Africa to the Iberian Peninsula (Spain & Portugal), that weren't legit as well.

But you want to talk of justification of wars of without religious context.

There are never just "one" reason for war; the world is never in black-and-white because the world of politics and foreign relations are and have always being complex, even for religious wars, or for that matter, any wars or invasions involving the series of "Islamic " empires.

I have often stated that in the matter of politics and of wars, story have more than one side, and there could by any of the myriad of reasons that cause.

You have previously selected 3 examples (the world wars & the wars against native Americans), which had nothing to do wars for or against religion. Looking at the world wars, there are no just "one" single reason for how the wars started; there were many reasons, and it wasn't about whether if the wars began were "just?" or "legitimate?" or "reasonable?", because the reasons for wars are complex.

If you look at WW1 for instance, it started out with the assassination of then Archduke of Austria-Hungary, by the Serbians, which led to series of chain-reactions of events that cause the war to be fought globally. Austro-Hungarian empire wanted to attack and punish Serbia for the assassination, but the Germans, their ally instead attack Belgium and Luxembourg, and later France, for no apparent reason. Russia was pulled into the war because it sided with Serbia. The war pulled many other countries into the wars, including Great Britain, the Ottoman Empire, and even Japan, depending on which sides the countries took. The U.S. didn't get involved in the wars till German submarines refused to heed the U.S. repeated warnings, not to attack civilian ships in the Atlantic, which included American deaths.

Why did Serbia have the Austrian-Hungarian archduke assassinated?
Was Austria good or evil/corrupted? Was Serbia good or evil/corrupted?
Did Austria-Hungary have the rights to attack Serbia for the assassination?
Why did Germany attack neutral and peaceful countries like Belgium and Luxembourg?
Did other countries have the rights to side with one side or the other?
Was the U.S. in the right in joining the war?
​

There are so many different reasons why the wars happen, that it is not easy to fathom one single reason for the war, or why other countries got involved in WW1. How do you find what is legit or reasonable in a war as complex as the World War 1?

To me, it is a silly question (yours) to ask, plus it has nothing to do with the thread's topic.

Muslims, such as yourself, often see that all wars initiated by past caliphs or sultans of Islamic empires or kingdoms, to be justified, and often blaming the other (non-Muslim) sides, are just blinding yourselves by the biased propaganda that Muslims have created for themselves. You (not just "you "personally, but "you" as in group(s) of Muslims) often refused to see the other sides of the war or politics.

Thanks and regards

 

[paarsurrey]

You are talking wet my friend:
Scimi

Many many thanks and regards.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey, We are accumulating quite a list of Muslims who - for the last 1400 years - were doing it wrong. It seems to me that all of the Islamic conquerors of the last 1400 years were actually "doing it right". Not that I'm agreeing with what they did, but that they were doing what the Quran and the example of Muhammad's life told them to do.

Islam's message is: "go conquer stuff", and that's what Muslims have been doing for 1400 years - right up to and including 2014.

I don't agree with it.
It is totally wrong.

Regards

 

[icehorse]

I don't agree with it.
It is totally wrong.
Regards

This was in answer to my claim that Islam's message is "go conquer stuff".

paarsurrey, Let me ask you this, just to establish that we're discussing the same things.

It's my understanding that the two basic foundational ideas of Islam are:

1 - The Quran is the perfect and final word of God.
2 - Muhammad is the role model for how to live a perfect life.

Is that correct? If not, could you revise the above to be correct?

Thanks!

 

[paarsurrey]

This was in answer to my claim that Islam's message is "go conquer stuff".

paarsurrey, Let me ask you this, just to establish that we're discussing the same things.

It's my understanding that the two basic foundational ideas of Islam are:

1 - The Quran is the perfect and final word of God.
2 - Muhammad is the role model for how to live a perfect life.

Is that correct? If not, could you revise the above to be correct?

Thanks!

Certainly true.

1.Please also note that Quran is final in the sense it is in the original form it was revealed and with it all religious/revealed scriptures in the world have been secured and protected for true and truthful meaning.
2. Muhammad made it compulsory for every Muslims to believe in all revelations made to messengers/prophets of G-d in any part of the world, whether Abrahamic or non-Abrahamic.

A Muslim cannot be a truthful Muslim if he does not believe in the above.

Muhammad's Sunnah (not Hadith) or his Acts are inclusive of all the truthful acts/sunnah of messengers/prophets of G-d in any part of the world, whether Abrahamic or non-Abrahamic.

That make one's vision broader. There is no harm in it.

Thanks

 

[outhouse]

I don't agree with it.

We don't care what you think. you have less then zero credibility here.


That is not how you debate. Of course we know your only here to proselytize

 

[England my lionheart]

IK im sorry bossman. Thats why I elaborated a bit in a second post lol.

Actually I'm not your boss but it's good to elaborate.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey, We are accumulating quite a list of Muslims who - for the last 1400 years - were doing it wrong. It seems to me that all of the Islamic conquerors of the last 1400 years were actually "doing it right". Not that I'm agreeing with what they did, but that they were doing what the Quran and the example of Muhammad's life told them to do.

Islam's message is: "go conquer stuff", and that's what Muslims have been doing for 1400 years - right up to and including 2014.

Please quote from Quran the first and the foremost source of guidance of Muslims all over the world whatever the denomination.

Regards