I always liked that part. No force, you just need to pay enough money to feal subdued.

The only time (during the Prophet) that the muslims went to war was strictly for the purposes of preserving Islam and it's fellow muslims. Even after the war they were very peaceful to the prisoners. They would treat them nicely, and would realease them if they taught 10 illiterate muslims how to read and write... By this time the prisoner would see the followers of Islam and conversate with them and realize that Islam is the truth and would usually convert themselves.

Most of the spread of Islam was done with reasoning and dialoging with others. The Quran is a book of reason, even though you might not be able to comprehend everything because of how deep the Quran goes, it never goes against human reason... whereas you can see the basic Christian religion which believes in the trinity that goes against human reasoning... human reasoning believes 1=1 and 3=3... where the trinity tells you that 3=1 and 1=3.

Kidman

You're right, I apologise for implying that you were misquoting the verse. I meant to speak about people in general.

Peace,
I don't think any muslim would think that Islam was spread by sword/violence. It just doesnt sound logical. It could not have been possible to use force to convert people over a period of 1400+ years. Don't you think?

A well known scholar in US once brought up this topic in his lecture and he mentioned that during the whole lifetime of Prophet Muhammed(SAW), the total number of people killed in war were around 1300+, of which 700+ were muslims and the rest were non-believers. (If you want proof or further discuss on this, I could help you contact the scholar himself). Another account from (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamen...t/profbio.html) says its far less:

"In all these "wars," extending over a period of ten years, the non-Muslims lost on the battlefield only about 250 persons killed, and the Muslim losses were even less."


During the last hajj of Prophet (SAW) there were tens of thousands of people listening to his lecture. Muhammed SAW didn't possess the magical powers that were bestowed upon Jesus(as) and hence he (SAW) couldnt have attracted people with his magical prowess. So what could have possibly "forced" tens of thousands of people to become muslims when only around 250 non-believers were killed in wars in a span of 13 years? If you read the story of Prophet SAW, you will find that his personality and the teachings of Islam brought people to the fold of Islam. Wouldnt women like the idea of the right to vote and a share in property 1400+ years back, given that the west gave such rights only 100 years back? Wouldn't slaves 1400+ years back like the idea of civil rights?

After the time of prophet (SAW), the immediate successors (caliphs) were no different. I can provide you with more information if you want.

Long after the death of Prophet SAW was the popular invasion of Persia and Middle east by the Mongols. Middle East by this time was a completely Islamic state. The mongols annihilated the whole of persia as you might know. They could have very well established a new religion by force if they had wanted to. Now what could have possibly *forced* the ruthless and powerful mongols to become muslims ?

There might have been a few muslim rulers at a far later period that (I am unaware of) could have possibly used force. I can't discount that theory considering the fact that Islam spread far across Asia, Africa and Europe. But that could have never been a major contributing factor to the spread of Islam.

Even if we generalize this question to "were all religions spread by sword?", the answer would be YES and NO. There have always been some crazy rulers who *might* have used force to convert people. Its something common for most religions.

I don't seem to understand this question. If you could elaborate, I could help you find answers. Logically anything done by using force would never last forever.

I don't think any Non-Muslim would think that Islam was not spread by sword/violence.
By the same token, there had to be many peaceful conversions.
I find it totally illogical to think that it was all one or the other.

Think again ;) ! There are actually a great many non-muslim historians and writers who have said it was not spread by the sword - here are a few quotations:

“The Christian World came to wage crusades against Muslims but eventually knelt before them to gain knowledge. They were spellbound to see that Muslims were owners of a culture that was far superior to their own. The Dark Ages of Europe were illuminated by nothing but the beacon of Muslim Civilization.” (F.J.C Hearushaw, The Science of History)

"History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated." (De Lacy O'Leary, ISLAM AT THE CROSSROADS, London, 1923, p. 8)

“The Renaissance of Europe did not take place in the 15th century. Rather it began when Europe learned from the culture of the Arabs. The cradle of European awakening is not Italy. It is the Muslim Spain.” (Robert Briffault, The Making Of Mankind)

Incidentally these well-established facts dispose of the idea so widely fostered in Christian writings that the Muslims, wherever they went, forced people to accept Islam at the point of the sword.(Lawrence E. Browne,‘The Prospects of Islam,’ 1944)

Despite the growth of antagonism, Moslem (Muslim) rulers seldom made their Christian subjects suffer for the Crusades. When the Saracens finally resumed the full control of Palestine the Christians were given their former status as dhimmis. The Coptic Church, too had little cause for complaint under Saladin's (Salahuddin) strong government, and during the time of the earlier Mameluke sultans who succeeded him the Copts experienced more enlightened justice than they had hitherto known. The only effect of the Crusaders upon Egyptian Christians was to keep them for a while from pilgrimage to Jerusalem, for as long as the Frank were in charge heretics were forbidden access to the shrines. Not until the Moslem victories could they enjoy their rights as Christians. (James Addison, 'The Christian Approach to the Moslem,' p. 35)

The picture of the Muslim soldier advancing with a sword in one hand and the Qur'an in the other is quite false.(A. S. Tritton, in 'Islam,' 195)

No other religion in history spread so rapidly as Islam. The West has widely believed that this surge of religion was made possible by the sword. But no modern scholar accepts this idea, and the Qur’an is explicit in the support of the freedom of conscience. (James Michener, ‘Islam: The Misunderstood Religion,’ Reader’s Digest, May 1955, pp. 68-70)

My problem to write this monograph is easier, because we are not generally fed now on that (distorted) kind of history and much time need not be spent on pointing out our misrepresentations of Islam. The theory of Islam and sword, for instance, is not heard now in any quarter worth the name. The principle of Islam that “there is no compulsion in religion” is well known. (K. S. Ramakrishna Rao, 'Mohammed: The Prophet of Islam,' 1989)

When Pococke inquired of Grotius, where the proof was of that story of the pigeon, trained to pick peas from Mahomet's (Muhammad's) ear, and pass for an angel dictating to him? Grotius answered that there was no proof!..

A greater number of God's creatures believe in Mahomet's word at this hour than in any other word whatever. Are we to suppose that it was a miserable piece of spiritual legerdemain, this which so many creatures of the almighty have lived by and died by?... (Thomas Carlyle, ‘Heroes, Hero Worship, and the Heroic in History,’ Lecture 2, Friday, 8th May 1840)

“A rugged, strife-torn and mountaineering people...were suddenly turned into an indomitable Arab force, which achieved a series of splendid victories unparalleled in the history of nations, for in the short space of ninety years that mighty range of Saracenic (i.e. Muslim) conquest embraced a wider extent of territory than Rome had mastered in the course of eight hundred.”(Simon Ockley, in 'History of the Saracens')

We have never heard about any attempt to compel Non-Muslim parties to adopt Islam or about any organized persecution aiming at exterminating Christianity. If the Caliphs had chosen one of these plans, they would have wiped out Christianity as easily as what happened to Islam during the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella in Spain; by the same method which Louis XIV followed to make Protestantism a creed whose followers were to be sentenced to death; or with the same ease of keeping the Jews away from Britain for a period of three hundred fifty years. (Thomas Arnold, in 'The Call to Islam.')

Regards

It is interesting that you only address half of what I said.

True. I only addressed the half I disagreed with.

Peace.

I am afraid you missed the context of my message. I was directly addressing the thread starter's question, which was "what do muslims think about the spread of Islam".

I think the questioner, being a non-muslim knows at least a little about what non-muslims think about the spread of Islam.

I agree that it is *possible* that some tyrant muslim ruler in some far corner of the world perhaps forcibly converted some people. But if they ever did so, it is absolutely against the teachings on Islam.

From my understanding of Islamic history, there have been no accounts of forcible conversions in Islam. Even if we are to assume that Islam was spread by force, how can we account for all the conversions happening all across the world now? Do you think ""force" is being used in USA to make Islam the chosen religion by americans to revert to?

If you have further questions on this, you could discuss about this with a renowned scholar at www.chatislam.com

No, I don't I missed the context of my message. I simply conclude that it was not all by force or all by choice. And as far as "By Force" it can come in many forms.