PDA

View Full Version : Is this a good Refutation? 'Was Islam Spread by the Sword?'



- Qatada -
01-27-2007, 06:40 PM
:salamext:


Most people say that Islaam forced people from other lands to become muslim.


We usually get the muslim response that this isn't the case, and that 'there is no compulsion in religion':

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. [Qur'an 2:256]

Then people usually ask why islaam spread to other lands, why couldn't the people just go to the other lands and call the public to islaam. Why couldn't the muslims go in the streets of the other nation and give the people leaflets, pamphlets explaining the truth and reality of islaam?


The answer to this is simple; 1400yrs ago - nearly in every nation a person was bound to follow the religion of his/her ruler. If a person turned away from the religion of the nation/ruler, they were likely to be executed straightaway.


We know that this was the case when an arab [located on the border of Al-Sham/Greater Syria] who was a former ally with the Byzantinian Romans became muslim, he was executed by the Byzantinians. This shows that the people weren't allowed to follow another way of life other than what their ruler followed, otherwise they would face death.

This is also the case with Khisra, the ruler of Persia who tore up the letter recieved by the Messenger of Allaah, Muhammad (peace be upon him) - because he never wanted his people to follow another religion, otherwise he could lose his authority.



Therefore if the ruler was christian, the people were forced to follow that religion. Anyone who was in Iraq/Iran would have to follow Zoroastrianism. Anyone who was in India would have to follow hinduism etc. This happened for many centuries in the world, it was also at the time of the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him), and continued for many centuries even after that.



What did Islaam come to do? It came to the oppressive rulers and gave them one of 3 options:


1) Become muslim.

2) Pay Jizya [a small tax] and you will be under the protection of the muslims.

3)
If you don't want to accept the above, then fight.

That might seem violent, but lets look at it this way - all the nations of the world would force the people to follow the religion of their ruler.


When islaam came, it abolished this ideology of following the faith of your ruler, and because the people were living under oppression anyway by these rulers, who were taking advantage of the people. At the same time these oppressive rulers may have taxed the people heavily, because all they had in their mind was to keep the poor - poor, and keep themselves rich.



So what options did the muslims give to these oppressive governments?


The government had one of the 3 choices mentioned above.



1) They could either accept islaam and become brothers and sisters in faith, the muslims would allow these people to keep their land and wealth etc. But at the same time they would have to rule with the justice of Islaam. This would give safety to those who wanted to accept islaam within the nation because no-one could harm them if they wanted to accept the truth.

2) They could pay Jizya [a small tax] and this would be used to strengthen the security of the state, and also to help the needy etc. The benefits with this tax would be that, the people who lived in the state - they would keep their land, wealth, their honor and blood would be protected - which means their oppressive rulers can't harm them no more, and if anyone waged war against them - the muslims would fight on their behalf.

Compare this to the oppressive rulers before who would tax the people heavily, take over their lands, take their wealth, even harm them physically and take away their honor because all these people wanted was this life, they wanted to keep their empire so keeping the poor - weak would make them feel superior and feel less under a threat.


3) Or the war would take place. The muslims would actually tell the enemy that within 3 days the opposing government has to make a decision. If they don't accept either terms 1 or 2, they will be fought against. This gave the enemy time to think carefully and the muslims trustworthiness meant that they weren't ready to be attacked at any moment, rather the muslims would fight only when they had said so, unlike other enemies who may have done a surprise attack without notice.

The muslims would fight the government until the muslims had authority in the land, and then the justice would be set for the public. 1400yrs ago, if a nation took over a land - the people there would become slaves of the rulers. However, when islaam had authority the people were still free and could either pay Jizya (option 2) or become muslim without the threat of being killed.




Muslims were only told to fight against those who fought them. The Messenger of Allaah, Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:

“Do not kill any old person, any child, or any woman.” (Abu Dawud)

“Do not kill the monks in monasteries,” or “Do not kill the people who are sitting in places of worship.” (Musnad of Ibn Hanbal)


The people living in the state, whether muslim or non muslim were under the protection of the muslim government and like mentioned earlier, their blood and honor was protected. They weren't forced to become muslim, but due to this justice alot actually became muslim.

Those who never accepted islaam were allowed to rule by their own scripture, and they even had their own courts. However the major crimes would be taken to authority, and would be dealt with justly. Even if a non muslim was wronged, they would have the right to equity.



If anyone mentions situations which may have happened in muslim history in which the muslims were unjust, realise that we don't take our example from them - rather we take it from the example of the Messenger of Allaah, Muhammad (peace be upon him), and the way of his companions, who all applied justice. It was only after that some people ruled with oppression. Islaam is perfect, muslims aren't.





Someone might claim that alot of countries today allow people to follow a religion of their choice without being executed for switching religions. So why is this rule of: 1) Become Muslim 2) Jizya 3) Fight. come into it? Why is it still an islamic rule? Isn't this just an ancient idea now?

We simply say that it has only been a few centuries since the idea of 'being executed' for not following the religion of the state has been abolished [Especially in the west.]

We have seen an increase in the amount of people from other parts of the world settling in other nations (especially the west) where you have the right to follow your religion and not be harmed. And this is a basic rule in islaam, that the muslims are allowed to live in a state which allows the muslims to practise their religion freely.





Why don't the muslims go to other nations to fight and have authority in the land like the past?


Allaah Almighty out of His Eternal Wisdom has made the world in a situation that the events leading to the final hour [i.e. Judgement Day] are coming to pass. One of these events has been prophecised by the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) who said:


Narrated Thawban:


The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The people will soon summon one another to attack you as people when eating invite others to share their dish.



Someone asked: Will that be because of our small numbers at that time?



He replied: No, you will be numerous at that time: but you will be scum and rubbish like that carried down by a torrent, and Allah will take fear of you from the breasts of your enemy and last enervation into your hearts.



Someone asked: What is wahn (enervation). Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him):



He replied: Love of the world and dislike of death.

Abu Dawud Book 37, Number 4284.


We can see this today, where we have wahn in our hearts - when the love of this world has entered our hearts, over the love of the hereafter [i.e. Paradise.]

Where we have deviated from the religion of Allaah/God Almighty, so we have turned away from establishing Allaah's Just law on the earth. So the oppressors can oppress, and the weak stay poor. This is still taking place in the materialistic world we live in today. Where the people are put under pressure to get the latest things, in order to be respected or accepted by society. The media is our 'guidance' and if we turn away from this 'guidance' - we are looked down upon by the public. Then something new comes out and the gadget you got before is 'old' and you need to move forward, otherwise you're looked down upon again. Where if you don't move forward with society, you're left alone.. rejected.


It's a continous circle, and we as muslims have fallen into it. We've actually become the slaves of this society, even though the purpose of this life is to be the slave of our own Creator, Allaah Almighty.

Due to this attatchment to this world, we have turned away from the guidance which was revealed to Muhammad (peace be upon him.) Which means we have stopped striving for Allaah's cause, and in return for that - we are facing the humiliation on earth we see today.



So - no, the establishment of justice with the law of Allaah, isn't 'ancient' - rather we are becoming slaves of society instead of slaves of Allaah. The real life is the afterlife, and the establishment of Justice for Allaah's sake holds a huge reward in this world and the hereafter. This can only come through striving in order to please Allaah, and with your sincerety - you will see the fruits inshaa'Allaah [God willing.] If not in this world, in the real life of the eternal hereafter.. where you can have all that you desire, and more. They are pleased with Allaah, and He is pleased with them. That is the great victory.




Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Skillganon
01-28-2007, 12:47 PM
Overall it is good. Just need more detail.

Also you seem to wandered of too early from the purpose of the article to the demise of the muslims world.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
01-28-2007, 01:08 PM
bro its a good refutation, its pretty much the refutation of Ahmed Deedat and Zakir Naik with a bit more detail inside.

Also bro most people who consider islam to be spread by the sword are ignorant ie they would never put in the effort to read that much so im thinking perhaps its better to summarise it up if your going to use it for dawah :?
Reply

- Qatada -
01-28-2007, 01:13 PM
:salamext:


lol jazak Allaah khayr.. yeah i did go off quite abit, maybe it could be used to explain to muslims init, like what's happening in the world right now and why we facing what we are.


The main points i just wanted to put across was that because the disbelieving rulers never allowed people to follow a faith of their own will, islaam fought these rulers for that purpose - so there was more freedom and fairness.


Bro skillgannon, what issues need more clarity? I need to get solid facts from history to prove the points i agree, and i need more aayat and ahadith, and facts of the justness of the khulafah al-rashidoon etc.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
shigatse
01-29-2007, 01:14 PM
Asslamoalaikum

Malaysia Has the most population of Muslims, and None went there with Sword.

JazakAllah
Reply

wilberhum
01-29-2007, 09:04 PM
I think it is absurd to believe that the spread of Islam was entirely by the sword.
I also think it is just as absurd to believe the spread of Islam was entirely without the sword.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza

The Banû Qurayza was a Jewish tribe who lived in northern Arabia during the 7th century. In 627 CE, the tribe was besieged by the Muslims commanded by Muhammad, taken captive and all men, apart from a few who converted to Islam, were beheaded.
It seams to me that a few Qurayza were persuaded by the sword.

You can quote “There is no compulsion in religion” all you want. You can quote a thousand other supporting verses. It is meaningless unless you really accept that all Muslims for all time have obeyed every Islamic principle.

Islamic or not, there are implications that some were converted by the sward.
Reply

Skillganon
01-29-2007, 09:13 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
I think it is absurd to believe that the spread of Islam was entirely by the sword.
I also think it is just as absurd to believe the spread of Islam was entirely without the sword.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza


It seams to me that a few Qurayza were persuaded by the sword.

You can quote “There is no compulsion in religion” all you want. You can quote a thousand other supporting verses. It is meaningless unless you really accept that all Muslims for all time have obeyed every Islamic principle.

Islamic or not, there are implications that some were converted by the sward.
I am not aware if the material provided in wikipedia is of a satisfactory or accurate level.
However it will be wrong to assume that they where beheaded because of they did not accept Islam, but rather because of their trangression.
Those who wanted to become muslim where given the chance and a clean sheet, whatever their motive was for becoming a muslim we do not speculate.
Reply

- Qatada -
01-29-2007, 09:13 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
I think it is absurd to believe that the spread of Islam was entirely by the sword.
I also think it is just as absurd to believe the spread of Islam was entirely without the sword.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza


It seams to me that a few Qurayza were persuaded by the sword.

You can quote “There is no compulsion in religion” all you want. You can quote a thousand other supporting verses. It is meaningless unless you really accept that all Muslims for all time have obeyed every Islamic principle.

Islamic or not, there are implications that some were converted by the sward.


I think you havn't read the context of that situation. :) The reason why Banu Quraydha was executed was because they commited treason, when 10,000 strong [From Quraysh, Ghattafaan etc.] were fighting the muslims (who ere about 3000 in number), the Banu Quraydha who had a treaty with the muslims in Medina broke it off at that moment in time, and were supplying the enemy while planning on killing the muslim women, children and elders.


By the will of Allaah, Allaah provided a way out for the muslims by sending a strong wind which lead to the tribes of Quraysh and Ghattafaan to leave the siege which they had started themselves around Medina. It lasted for about a month. Then who was left? It was the tribe of Banu Quraydha themselves, as they lived in Medina. They had commited treason, hence the punishment should be equal to the crime.


What happens next?

The Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) asks Sa'ad ibn Mu'aadh to give judgement to the Banu Quraydha [who used to be former allies with Sa'ad ibn Mu'aadh when islaan hadn't entered Medina] - the Jews of Banu Quraydah agreed that Sa'ad could be the one to make the ruling because they felt he would be flexible with them due to the fact that they were allies in the past. However, Sa'ad ibn Mu'aadh ordered that their men be executed and their women and children be enslaved. Why? Because that was the same intention of the Banu Quraydha themselves. So the punishment is equal to the crime.



Thankyou. :) And Allaah Almighty knows best.



Peace.
Reply

wilberhum
01-29-2007, 10:05 PM
Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah

I think you havn't read the context of that situation.
Oh but I did. I made no comment about whether or not the executions were justified.

It just seams that the sword helped some convert.
Reply

Umar001
01-29-2007, 10:13 PM
To me this refutation feels like it is lacking something. It does not feel like a refutation but rather an introduction, introducing people to Islaam.
Reply

Malaikah
01-31-2007, 02:07 AM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
Oh but I did. I made no comment about whether or not the executions were justified.
They did the crime, they knew the consequences of their actions.
It just seams that the sword helped some convert.
How so? ^o) Those people were 'killed' by the sword for their crime, not forced to convert.
Reply

Skillganon
01-31-2007, 02:12 AM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
Oh but I did. I made no comment about whether or not the executions were justified.

It just seams that the sword helped some convert.
We have a concept in Islam that whoever proclaims to the shahadah, it becomes automatically forbiden to kill him, even if that person say's it in the battle field (of course he has stop fighting). We do not question the motive.
Reply

wilberhum
01-31-2007, 11:37 PM
Boy, some just don’t get the point. It has nothing to do with the summary executions were just or not. Whether they were forced or not isn’t the point.

Men who did not convert got there heads cut off. Those that converted were spared. They you say Islam was not spread by the sward.
The two just don’t jell.

You can make up all the excuses and justifications you want.
You will never convince a non believer.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
02-01-2007, 12:27 AM
Those people were 'killed' by the sword for their crime, not forced to convert.
^^Maybe you dont get it :X
Reply

- Qatada -
02-01-2007, 11:32 AM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
Boy, some just don’t get the point. It has nothing to do with the summary executions were just or not. Whether they were forced or not isn’t the point.

Men who did not convert got there heads cut off. Those that converted were spared. They you say Islam was not spread by the sward.
The two just don’t jell.

You can make up all the excuses and justifications you want.
You will never convince a non believer.

That's because when a person becomes muslim, all their previous sins are gone/vanished. So they don't get punished for the crime. Those that did the crime and don't become muslim don't have their sins forgiven which means that their still responsible for it. Hence the punishment isn't applied on them.

Anyway it depends if you understand the concept of good and bad deeds, and it also depends on faith.
Reply

wilberhum
02-01-2007, 05:41 PM
it also depends on faith.
I think that wrapes it up. You have to be a Muslim to beleive the sword was not involved. :hiding: :hiding:
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
02-01-2007, 09:49 PM
There was sword, but NOT for force. You have to know your history well enough to know that, not just be Muslim. Try learning the entire history.
Reply

wilberhum
02-01-2007, 10:47 PM
Originally Posted by Tayyaba
There was sword, but NOT for force. You have to know your history well enough to know that, not just be Muslim. Try learning the entire history.
Maybe you think "If you don't convert you loose your head" is not force. :hiding: :confused:
You don't have to be a history expert to analyse that situation. :hiding:
Reply

- Qatada -
02-01-2007, 11:47 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
Maybe you think "If you don't convert you loose your head" is not force. :hiding: :confused:
You don't have to be a history expert to analyse that situation. :hiding:

Well it wasn't really that now was it? They were punished for treason, and that still applies in the US today. If you commit treason against your nation, you get capital punishment. The same happened to those people.

However, the muslims actually had leniency upon those who became muslim - the same way the government decides who they want to let off or not.
Reply

wilberhum
02-02-2007, 12:09 AM
Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
Well it wasn't really that now was it? They were punished for treason, and that still applies in the US today. If you commit treason against your nation, you get capital punishment. The same happened to those people.

However, the muslims actually had leniency upon those who became muslim - the same way the government decides who they want to let off or not.
Ya it really was that way wasn't it. And again it has nothing to do with what they did or why they did it. It has nothing to do with whether or not the punishment was just. The only point I am making was, if they didn't convert, the sword was used. Now I don't care what you call it. I call it conversion by the sword. :hiding: :hiding:
Reply

Malaikah
02-02-2007, 01:24 AM
The sword was not used because they didn't convert, it was used for their act of treason.

Huge difference!
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
02-02-2007, 02:39 AM
Clear your mind man, it doesn't seem to be sitting in your head.
Reply

wilberhum
02-05-2007, 04:31 PM
Originally Posted by Malaikah
The sword was not used because they didn't convert, it was used for their act of treason.

Huge difference!
It is amazing. Does any one read? It isn't about thoes that were executed or why they were executed.:rant:
It is about those that were spaired the sword because they converted. :rolleyes:
It seams obvious to me that they were converted by the sword. :playing:
Reply

Keltoi
02-05-2007, 08:36 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
It is amazing. Does any one read? It isn't about thoes that were executed or why they were executed.:rant:
It is about those that were spaired the sword because they converted. :rolleyes:
It seams obvious to me that they were converted by the sword. :playing:
I'm afraid I agree with wilberhum. If one is executed for not converting, then that person's life was taken because they didn't convert. One less non-Muslim to get in the way.
Reply

- Qatada -
02-05-2007, 08:59 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
I'm afraid I agree with wilberhum. If one is executed for not converting, then that person's life was taken because they didn't convert. One less non-Muslim to get in the way.

Keltoi, have you actually read what i posted? These people got executed because of their crime of treason. They would have got killed anyway even though they were safe before because they upheld their treaty, until the battle of the trench where they broke it off [preparing to kill the muslim women, children and seniors.]

Due to the fact that their intention was to kill the muslims - the same punishment was applied upon them. An exception to the rule was that they become muslim because we, and even you as a christian understand the concept of good and bad deeds. And we know that if someone becomes muslim, all their past bad deeds are erased.
Reply

islamway
02-05-2007, 09:06 PM
About Islam:

Islaam is not a religion of arms and swords! When Allaah Almighty revealed the Noble Qur'ân to Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, and Muhammad became the Messenger of GOD Almighty, Muhammad had to spread Islaam to 365 Pagan Arab Tribes. These tribes showed so much hostility toward the Muslims and Islaam, and have imposed so many battles against the Muslims.

Later, when Islaam was the religion of what we call today Saudi Arabia, and the 365 Pagan Arab tribes mostly converted to Islaam, the Muslims had to yet face another type of challenge.

The Nuclear Soviet Union and the United States of America of our days were the Great Empires of the Christian Romans and the Pagan Persians. If you know geography and history well enough, then you would see that the Muslims were trapped between those two big Super Powers.

Hostility and Battles from those two Empires were imposed upon the Muslims. For instance, when our Prophet peace be upon him sent his messenger to "Kisrah", the Emperor of Persia, introducing Islaam to him, Kisrah ordered for the Muslims' Messenger to be executed!

Back then, like today, this was considered a coward act. It was the Persians who showed the hostility toward the Muslims and declared the many battles against Islaam.

The Christian Romans weren't any better. For instance, in one of their many battles against the Muslims is when they saw the threat to their religion in the Middle East, the King "Herucl", sent out an army of 100,000 men and ordered them to go to "Madina" in what we call today Saudi Arabia to destroy Islaam once and for all.

The Muslims were not stable yet at that time, and they only sent out an army of 3,000 men at that time to drive the Christian Romans away from Madina. The battle was named "The battle of Mo'ta" and it took place in Mo'ta, Jordan today.

The Muslims' plan was to meet the Christian Romans far away from Madina, and to have them stray away from Madina. The army of 3,000 men was successful enough to fight the Christian Romans for few days and then to pull away from the battle and headed South of Jordan. The Romans strayed away from Madina and the small army of the Muslims was able to run away through the mountains. More than half of the 3,000 Muslims however were killed in this operation.

The point is that Islaam didn't spread by sword with much choice. The wars were imposed upon the Muslims. The Muslims didn't ask for those wars.
Reply

Keltoi
02-06-2007, 03:34 AM
Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
Keltoi, have you actually read what i posted? These people got executed because of their crime of treason. They would have got killed anyway even though they were safe before because they upheld their treaty, until the battle of the trench where they broke it off [preparing to kill the muslim women, children and seniors.]

Due to the fact that their intention was to kill the muslims - the same punishment was applied upon them. An exception to the rule was that they become muslim because we, and even you as a christian understand the concept of good and bad deeds. And we know that if someone becomes muslim, all their past bad deeds are erased.
You're right, sorry. I misunderstood the context to be the execution of those who refused to convert to Islam. I didn't catch the details of the situation.
Reply

YusufNoor
02-06-2007, 04:24 AM
A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu 'alaykum,

ummm, i didn't real the whole thread, cuz i don't have too! :p

the misperception that folks have is between conquering and converting! the Muslim Ummah may have conquered by the sword, but people were given a choice between conversion, vacating and paying the jizzya! (jizzya would be staying put and practicing your religion, but paying a tax; said tax was LESS than the REQUIRED zakat that Muslims HAD to pay!)

it's that simple!


[session 32 or 33 of the Seerah sessions Fi_Sibilillah! :lol: ]

:w:

Yusuf
Reply

brenton
02-06-2007, 11:56 AM
Islamic rule was spread by the sword. It is a fact. Not just in Arabia (which was the most peaceful Islamic rule), but collapsing the Byzantine & Sassanid empires.

In those areas, Islam--becoming Muslim--was not spread by the sword, generally. The Mawali were even put down for accepting Islam. It took several centuries for it to "take" with the locals. And even conquerors like the Mongols became Muslims.

I think the best example is South Asia: people became Muslims without any political enticement or Islamic rule, and that is the most populous Muslim region. Islam works better when it is organic and personal, not when it is spreading an empire.
Reply

Malaikah
02-06-2007, 12:00 PM
Originally Posted by brenton
Islamic rule was spread by the sword. It is a fact. Not just in Arabia (which was the most peaceful Islamic rule), but collapsing the Byzantine & Sassanid empires.

In those areas, Islam--becoming Muslim--was not spread by the sword, generally. The Mawali were even put down for accepting Islam. It took several centuries for it to "take" with the locals. And even conquerors like the Mongols became Muslims.
Thank you!!! :D This is exactly the point I've tried to make so many times, the distinction is so important but everyone over looks it.
Reply

Snowflake
02-06-2007, 12:34 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
Ya it really was that way wasn't it. And again it has nothing to do with what they did or why they did it. It has nothing to do with whether or not the punishment was just. The only point I am making was, if they didn't convert, the sword was used. Now I don't care what you call it. I call it conversion by the sword. :hiding: :hiding:
Er, if muslims were converting by sword, why give the option of jiziya (tax)? :?
Reply

wilberhum
02-06-2007, 05:22 PM
Originally Posted by Muslimah_Sis
Er, if muslims were converting by sword, why give the option of jiziya (tax)? :?
I don't think jiziya was offered to the Banû Qurayza. :playing: :thumbs_do
Reply

Snowflake
02-06-2007, 05:51 PM
Any chance you find out for sure instead of just thinking?
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
02-06-2007, 05:54 PM
^^Exactly.
All non Muslims were offered Jizya. Maybe u should stop replying ignorantly. How can u claim to know anything about Islamic history when u dont even know this much?
Reply

wilberhum
02-06-2007, 05:58 PM
Originally Posted by Muslimah_Sis
Any chance you find out for sure instead of just thinking?
Maybe you need to find out for sure instead of just thinking.
Do you have a clue who the Banû Qurayza were or what there story is?
Reply

wilberhum
02-06-2007, 06:01 PM
Originally Posted by Tayyaba
^^Exactly.
All non Muslims were offered Jizya. Maybe u should stop replying ignorantly. How can u claim to know anything about Islamic history when u dont even know this much?
Wow, I am really impressed. Obviously you don't konw some of your history either. All almost never works, because there are almost allways excptions.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
02-06-2007, 06:01 PM
Are u kiddin me, u make comments that are wrong even after someone says how somethin was.
Reply

wilberhum
02-06-2007, 06:03 PM
Originally Posted by Tayyaba
Your asking as if u know more?
I know better about this one fact. I'm just amazed at the denial/excuses it receives.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
02-06-2007, 06:04 PM
Lol, sure mate.
Reply

Snowflake
02-06-2007, 06:17 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
Maybe you need to find out for sure instead of just thinking.
Do you have a clue who the Banû Qurayza were or what there story is?
It's not me who's thinking. And I do have more than a clue about who the Banu Qurayza were. They agreed to aid the Meccans in their attack on Medina. That's asking to be slaughtered.
Reply

wilberhum
02-06-2007, 06:20 PM
Originally Posted by Muslimah_Sis
It's not me who's thinking. And I do have more than a clue about who the Banu Qurayza were. They agreed to aid the Meccans in their attack on Medina. That's asking to be slaughtered.
I think this is the 3 time. :mad:
My point has nothing to do with who or why there were executed.
It only has to do with those that were not executed and why.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
02-06-2007, 06:25 PM
Which u keep ignoring, btw. Shall i repeat it step by step like this?:
The Bani Qurayza.
broke the Treaty they signed.
which was supposed too protect.
the people of Madina.
so they can attack.
the Muslims...Comprende? or am i going too fast?
Reply

wilberhum
02-06-2007, 06:28 PM
Originally Posted by Tayyaba
Which u keep ignoring, btw. Shall i repeat it step by step like this?:
The Bani Qurayza
broke the Treaty they signed
which was supposed too protect
the people of Madina.
so they can attack
the Muslims...Comprende?
Totally.
Do you have any comprende about those that did not die and why?
Reply

Snowflake
02-06-2007, 06:31 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
I think this is the 3 time. :mad:
My point has nothing to do with who or why there were executed.
It only has to do with those that were not executed and why.
lol :confused:

I haven't read the previous posts.. so have no idea who you mean?
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
02-06-2007, 06:32 PM
Because when you revert to Islam, your past sins are forgiven. They didnt continue killing like the rest. Those that continued to do it were not Muslim.
C
O
M
P
R
E
N
D
E? Im definitely gunna get beat down for this LOL.
Reply

Snowflake
02-06-2007, 06:33 PM
Oh now am on track ;D
Reply

wilberhum
02-06-2007, 06:34 PM
Originally Posted by Muslimah_Sis
lol :confused:

I haven't read the previous posts.. so have no idea who you mean?
Then why don't you read prior post instad of joining in when you don't know what is being addressed. :rant: :rant:

I see you are on track now. Good.
Reply

wilberhum
02-06-2007, 06:36 PM
Originally Posted by Tayyaba
Because when you revert to Islam, your past sins are forgiven. They didnt continue killing like the rest. Those that continued to do it were not Muslim.
C
O
M
P
R
E
N
D
E? Im definitely gunna get beat down for this LOL.
So, they converted to Islam to be spaired the Sword. Kinda my point!
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
02-06-2007, 06:37 PM
NO! man u dont get it. If it was the other way around like they were killed after reverting, you'd be saying how unjust it is. So either way ur view wouldnt change.
Reply

Snowflake
02-06-2007, 06:37 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
Then why don't you read prior post instad of joining in when you don't know what is being addressed. :rant: :rant:
lol I started from when u replied me, that didn't include previous posts. Are u really angry?
Reply

wilberhum
02-06-2007, 06:42 PM
Originally Posted by Tayyaba
Well duh!! If u get the concept! which is MY point.
I have always understood your concept. Do you understand mine?
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
02-06-2007, 06:43 PM
Sorry i changed that, i realized what u said. And yes i do, which is incorrect for the bazillionth time! If u did understand it, you wouldnt be asking the same thing over and over. I only gave u bits and peices. How can u understand me when u didnt understand the people who gave u ALL of the info?

Anyways im out, i sense someone watching me :X

Peace
Reply

brenton
02-06-2007, 07:11 PM
It is one thing to offer death or money or food (when you are starving) in exchange for conversion.
It is different for someone to convert for gain--avoid taxes or negative incentives, to rise in ranks, financial partnerships, etc.
Different things.

This thread is not titled: has anyone ever been compelled to convert to Islam. I am sure there are cases--I've read about them, and that is just what corrupt humans do sometimes.

Instead, the thread is titled: "Was Islam Spread by the Sword?" "Sword" is symbollic for a systematic forced conversion experience. If you take the phrase literally, yes, Islam was spread that way because along with the politics and war and empire building of early and later Islam, people converted. But I don't think the corelation is necessarily direct.
Reply

Maidah
02-06-2007, 07:28 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
So, they converted to Islam to be spaired the Sword. Kinda my point!

Firts of all i would say that boi you aint getting the point. To me it seems like you've already made up your mind about not wanting to understand the point. Like many people have already told you that they were beheaded because of their transgression. If islam really was spread by the sword than why would there still be so many disbeleivers even at that time. We could have had everyone being converted to islam using the sword. Even today there would be no point in dawah, we could just follow the actions of that time and use teh sword. Look at spain, muslim ruled it for so long, if we had really used the sword wouldn't spain be a muslim country today, like malaysia. No one went there with a sword. And even today so many people are converting to islam in US, who has got a sword on their head. Think about it now when there is so much going on in the media, people in US could easily choose not to convert as they may get into trouble. I'm not saying the sword wasn't there but not for the reason you think it was. I really think you should litsen to Dr.Zakir Naik and kinda try to get this thing the right way around you.

It may have been a bit repetitive or off the topic but i really hope you get the point.

May Allah forgive me for saying or referring to something incorrect.
Reply

wilberhum
02-06-2007, 07:41 PM
they were beheaded because of their transgression.
I think I stated 4 times that it had nothing to do with why they were executed.
If islam really was spread by the sword than why would there still be so many disbeleivers
Well one would have to be totally ignorant and stuped to think that Islam was only spread by the sword. I think I made that point in my first post.
Did you not read it, or did you just forget.
spain, muslim ruled it for so long, if we had really used the sword wouldn't spain be a muslim country today
Well who would ever think that converersion by the sword would last? If the conversions were real then Spain would be a Muslim country.

This as in all things, when you say or imply all, you are always wrong.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
02-06-2007, 07:44 PM
This as in all things, when you say or imply all, you are always wrong.
Speak for yourself mate.
Reply

wilberhum
02-06-2007, 07:45 PM
Originally Posted by Tayyaba
Speak for yourself mate.
I only speak for myself. I can speak for no one else and no one else can speak for me.

Who do you speak for?
Reply

Maidah
02-06-2007, 07:58 PM
This as in all things, when you say or imply all, you are always wrong.[/QUOTE]

You know what ya we're not wrong, it's just as an agnostic your job is to doubt the truth of religion to find the truth. You have all right to question and but the fact that our statements aint satisfying to you is your problem, not us being wrong. A lot of ppl have provided reference to their explantion, why dont't you provide an explanation to why there is still people converting to islam today?:rolleyes:
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
02-06-2007, 08:00 PM
If the conversions were fake, then why did the Christian rulers feel the need to force Muslims to convert? Or are u gunna say thats fake too :rolleyes:
Reply

- Qatada -
02-06-2007, 08:03 PM
:salamext:

No worries, he gets the point but doesn't want to accept it. The law is in the governments hands and they apply the law according to their beliefs. The same way the nations do today. They release who they feel they should, and they kill whoever they want. Atleast the muslims stuck to their part of the treaty.

By the way the Banu Quraydha actually payed the jizya, thats how they stayed in Medina for a while. Until the treason occured.



Anyway thread closed.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 44
    Last Post: 11-28-2016, 08:21 PM
  2. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-26-2014, 12:05 AM
  3. Replies: 241
    Last Post: 11-22-2007, 06:54 AM
  4. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-31-2006, 08:50 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-23-2006, 02:25 AM
HeartHijab.com | Hijab Sale | Pound Shop | UK Wholesale Certified Face Masks, Hand Sanitiser & PPE

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!