PDA

View Full Version : Was Islam spread by SWORD?



Rehmat
01-22-2005, 06:13 PM
The western non-Muslim – both historians and intellectuals are at loss to prove that Islam was spread - not by PEACEFUL MEANS but by SWORD.

Allow me to expose this Jewish Myth in detail:

Islam comes from the root word ‘salaam’, which means peace. It also means submitting one’s will to Allah. Thus Islam is a religion of peace, which is acquired by submitting one’s will to the will of the Supreme Creator.

Each and every human being in this world is not in favour of maintaining peace and harmony. There are many, who would disrupt it for their own vested interests. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace. It is precisely for this reason that we have the police who use force against criminals and anti-social elements to maintain peace in the country. Islam promotes peace. At the same time, Islam exhorts it followers to fight where there is oppression. The fight against oppression may, at times, require the use of force. In Islam force can only be used to promote peace and justice.

The best reply to the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword is given by the noted historian De Lacy O’Leary in the book "Islam at the cross road" -: "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 myth that historians have ever repeated."

Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. The Muslims in Spain never used the sword to force the Christian and Jew SERFS (Slaves) to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out over five million Muslims and Jews. There was not a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the Adhan.

Muslims were the lords of Arabia for a long time. For a few century the British and the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 20 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.

Indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of Muslims in the world. The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. May one ask, "Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia?"
The famous historian, Thomas Carlyle, in his book "Heroes and Hero worship", refers to this misconception about the spread of Islam: "The sword indeed, but where will you get your sword?

Every new opinion, at its starting is precisely in a minority of one. In one man’s head alone. There it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all men. That he takes a sword and try to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can."

Today the fastest growing religion in America is Islam. The fastest growing religion in Europe in Islam - Which sword is forcing people in the West to accept Islam in such large numbers?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
root
01-25-2005, 03:25 PM
Was Islam spread by SWORD?
At times YES!
Reply

Uthman
01-25-2005, 06:47 PM
Assalam alaikum,

Rehmat that was a great reply to this common 'misconceptions'. I have come across this answer before. One of Dr. Zakir Naik's I believe. He is a great scholar indeed
Reply

abdulkadir
01-26-2005, 08:55 PM
:applaud: mashallah
Thanks for this interesting article. May Allah reward you for this interesting and knowledgeable article.
Keep up what you are doing
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
Celestial
01-27-2005, 12:42 AM
Originally Posted by root
At times YES!
this only happened when they were forced to pick their arms to defend themselves. this may be potrayed differently in the western history ( which part of the western propagation ).
the moslim conquered large area's in europe in a short period the people became Muslim not by force of the sword but by the appeal of the new religion. i wonder if you can say the same about the Crusaders that killed millions of muslims and jews, or the russia's that killed thousands of mulims while the world watched and still turned a blind eye to it.

one thing that most people don't know is that moslims were known for their scientific research and they established relation with other western scientist to slove problems that faced them at that time.

examples:

Western Europeans learned their algebra from the works of the Arab mathematician Muhammed ibn Musa al-Khowarizmi. The word, algebra, is a corruption of al-jabr which is
part of the title of his treatise, Hisab al-jabr w'al muqabalah which means something like, "the science of reunion and reduction".without this fital information the world would have been not as we know it



The Abbasids, who succeeded the Umayyads, shifted the capital to Baghdad which soon developed into an incomparable center of learning and culture as well as the administrative and political heart of a vast world.


there is too much to say, this is just a brief summary. for more information visit http://www.barkati.net/english/#09 .


i wonder what is meant by DARK AGES ?
Reply

aamirsaab
01-27-2005, 04:16 PM
BOOOYAH!
*gives hi-five to Celestial*
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
01-30-2005, 07:37 PM
One ayah is sufficient to refute the myth that islam was spread by the sword:



2:256 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.

Muslims cannot convert people by force, hence we find it useless to try!

Any historical examination of events is actually secondary to this verse. And of course we can use statistics like Islam is the fastest growing religion in America.

Where are the muslims with swords in america?!?!
Reply

afriend
03-31-2006, 10:01 PM
I heard a lecture given by Dr. Zakir Naik a few months back.

Inshallah if som1 cud post that, it wud b gr8!
Reply

HeiGou
04-01-2006, 10:46 AM
Originally Posted by Celestial
this only happened when they were forced to pick their arms to defend themselves. this may be potrayed differently in the western history ( which part of the western propagation ).
Really? So Muslims have always, everywhere, all the time, only use violence to defend themselves? Never once, ever, attacked anyone? You have to admit, looking at the hundreds of major Christian religious sites that are now Muslim ones, and the handful of Muslim ones that are not Christian ones, the Muslims have been awfully successful for peaceful people who never pick up a sword except in self-defence?

the moslim conquered large area's in europe in a short period the people became Muslim not by force of the sword but by the appeal of the new religion.
Can we agree that the appeal, and hence the converts, would not have been there if not for the fact that the Muslims conquered those parts of Europe?

i wonder if you can say the same about the Crusaders that killed millions of muslims and jews, or the russia's that killed thousands of mulims while the world watched and still turned a blind eye to it.
Crusader did not kill millions of Muslims or Jews.
Reply

HeiGou
04-01-2006, 10:58 AM
Originally Posted by Rehmat
The western non-Muslim – both historians and intellectuals are at loss to prove that Islam was spread - not by PEACEFUL MEANS but by SWORD.

Allow me to expose this Jewish Myth in detail:
A Jewish myth? Technically it is a Protestant myth, but no matter. Why do you think it is a Jewish myth?

Each and every human being in this world is not in favour of maintaining peace and harmony. There are many, who would disrupt it for their own vested interests. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace. It is precisely for this reason that we have the police who use force against criminals and anti-social elements to maintain peace in the country. Islam promotes peace. At the same time, Islam exhorts it followers to fight where there is oppression. The fight against oppression may, at times, require the use of force. In Islam force can only be used to promote peace and justice.
So may I ask how you define "peace" and "justice"? Would it be fair to say that I would have a different view of what "peace" and "justice" are than you would? That you, essentially, are only interested in "Islamic peace" and "Islamic justice"?

So force has to be used sometimes. To fight oppression. What does that oppression consist of? Would it consist of, perhaps, polytheism? Is that a form of oppression? Would it consist of, say, refusing to let Muslims preach in non-Muslim countries? Who defines this oppression? Can you think of a single case in the entire history of the Muslim world where Muslims fought non-Muslims, and won, but where Islamic scholars condemned the Muslims for starting a war unjustly where there was no oppression etc?

The best reply to the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword is given by the noted historian De Lacy O’Leary in the book "Islam at the cross road" -: "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 myth that historians have ever repeated."
Well it is not entirely fantastically absurd, but can we agree you have blurred the line between his claim - that Muslims forced Islam on conquered people - with the less extreme claim - that Islam relied on the use of force to spread? If Muslims had not conquered, say, Egypt and imposed a jizyah and a kharaj, do you think it would be reasonable to say that Egypt would still be a mainly Christian country? After all Egyptians did not start to convert in large numbers until their last major rebellion failed in the mid-9th century. Would you agree that the main cause of that conversion was, as it happens, the Muslim conquest?

Maududi is clear on this: as he points out, when Muhammed was in Mecca and only preached he coverted very few people. Once he moved to Medina and picked up the sword, he converted thousands. Do you agree that the use of force in Medina was vital to the growth of Islam?

Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. The Muslims in Spain never used the sword to force the Christian and Jew SERFS (Slaves) to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out over five million Muslims and Jews. There was not a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the Adhan.
No serfs in Spain I expect. Can we agree that while the Muslims did not use the sword to force Christians and Jews (in any large numbers) to convert, in fact the conversion of any number of Spanish people was determined by the Muslim conquest? No conquest, no converts?

Muslims were the lords of Arabia for a long time. For a few century the British and the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 20 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.
This is a problem with cut-and-pasting. Bad mistakes get passed around. By Arabia whoever wrote this clearly means the Arab world as whole because those Copts live in Egypt. And this claim is wrong. If the Muslims had used the sword for force every single Copt to convert, there would be no Copts left in Egypt. But if they had not used to sword to conquer Egypt and reduce the Copts to second-class citizens, there would be no Arabs and no Muslims in Egypt today. Does anyone disagree with that?

Indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of Muslims in the world. The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. May one ask, "Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia?"
By all means. The Muslims converted a few local leaders and then they forced, by means of war, Islam on the rest of the Malay world. Europeans actually turneed up in time to see the last of the Buddhist Javanese states destroyed and just in time to save Bali.

Today the fastest growing religion in America is Islam. The fastest growing religion in Europe in Islam - Which sword is forcing people in the West to accept Islam in such large numbers?
That is still not true in either case. Wicca is growing faster. And it is growing because of, in the main part, immigration. There is no sword there yet.
Reply

ISDhillon
04-01-2006, 11:03 AM
Land was conquered by the sword, then islam was used as a weapon against the non-believers, approah the study this way and you will understand alot more.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
04-01-2006, 02:49 PM
http://www.load-islam.com/C/rebuttal...dersRefutation
Reply

ISDhillon
04-01-2006, 03:16 PM
What they did in the name of islam:

http://www.punjab2000.com/Martyrdom.html

WARNING NOT FOR THE FAINT HEARTED.

ISDhillon
Reply

Abu Zakariya
04-01-2006, 04:19 PM
I, as a Bosnian and European, am proud of being a "product of Jihad", in the sense that I'm a Muslim today because Muslims conquered Bosnia. The Muslims conquered Bosnia and let the people stay Christians. However, a lot of the people in Bosnia became Muslims including my ancestors.
Islam started out with the Prophet salallahu 'alayhi wa sallam, Khadeejah, Abu Bakr, 'Ali may God be pleased with them, and spread all the way to Bosnia.
I'm very proud of this.

Muslims don't wage Jihad to get oil or because of racism like some did/still do.
Jihad is to make God's word supreme.
Reply

HeiGou
04-01-2006, 04:22 PM
Originally Posted by Abu Zakariya
Muslims don't wage Jihad to get oil or because of racism like some did/still do.
Jihad is to make God's word supreme.
Although would you agree that a fair number of Muslims managed to acquire a fair amount of wealth along the way?
Reply

Abu Zakariya
04-01-2006, 04:44 PM
Probably.

There's a hadith where the Prophet salallahu 'alayhi wa sallam said that one of the first to be put in Hell on the Day of Judgement will be a mujahid that engaged in Jihad for other reasons than making God's word supreme.

I was talking about the concept of Jihad.
Reply

kadafi
04-02-2006, 12:14 AM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
So may I ask how you define "peace" and "justice"? Would it be fair to say that I would have a different view of what "peace" and "justice" are than you would? That you, essentially, are only interested in "Islamic peace" and "Islamic justice"?

So force has to be used sometimes. To fight oppression. What does that oppression consist of? Would it consist of, perhaps, polytheism? Is that a form of oppression? Would it consist of, say, refusing to let Muslims preach in non-Muslim countries? Who defines this oppression? Can you think of a single case in the entire history of the Muslim world where Muslims fought non-Muslims, and won, but where Islamic scholars condemned the Muslims for starting a war unjustly where there was no oppression etc?
Greetings

One of the main reason of the Islaamic expansion is to make the Word of Allaah supreme. What this entails is to promote free-thinking, eradicate superstitions and propagate the monotheistic belief that there is no god save Allaah.

For instance, many writers such as Forster praise the Islaamic Expansion for its moral influence in Africa. In fact, he is of the view that every nation that came in contact with Islaam has prospered.

Bosworth-Smith states that through the Islaamic expansion, it removed the dark rituals and practises that was heaped on the inhabitants of Africa:
"We hear of whole tribes laying aside their devil worship, or immemorial fetish, and springing at a bound, as it were, from the very lowest to one of the highest forms of religious belief. Christian travellers, with every wish to think otherwise, have remarked that the Negro who accepts `Mohamedanism' acquires at once a sense of the dignity of human nature not commonly found even among those who have been brought to accept Christianity"
R.B. Smith: Mohammed; op cit; p. 38.
He further adds:
"Nor as to the effects of Islam when first embraced by a Negro tribe, can there, when viewed as a whole, be any reasonable doubt. Polytheism disappears almost instantaneously; sorcery, with its attendant evils, gradually dies away; human sacrifice becomes a thing of the past. The general moral elevation is most marked; the natives begin for the first time in their history to dress, and that neatly. Squalid filth is replaced by some approach to personal cleanliness; hospitality becomes a religious duty; drunkenness, instead of the rule becomes a comparatively rare exception. Though polygamy is allowed by the Koran, it is not common in practice, and, beyond the limits laid down by the Prophet, incontinence is rare; chastity is looked upon as one of the highest, and becomes, in fact, one of the commoner virtues. It is idleness henceforth that degrades, and industry that elevates, instead of the reverse. Offences are henceforth measured by a written code instead of the arbitrary caprice of a chieftain-a step, as every one will admit, of vast importance in the progress of a tribe."
R.B. Smith: Mohammed; op cit; pp. 42-3.
Another reason for the advancement of the expansion was to exterminate oppression and install justice.

To state a few examples, al-Baladhuri (Muslim historian) records that the people of the Syrian city of Hims, both Christians and Jews, proclaimed their reference for Muslim rather than Byzantine Rule, beging the Muslim soldiers to stay when the emperor Heraclius threatened to retake the city. Once the Muslims defeated the Roman army, they welcomed the Muslims with music and dance.

This is supported by a text written by a Christian Syrian (after five centuries of Muslim rule in Syria). He writes:
This is why the God of vengeance, who alone is all-powerful, and changes the empire of mortals as He will, giving it to whomsoever He will, and uplifting the humble beholding the wickedness of the Romans who throughout their dominions, cruelly plundered our churches and our monasteries and condemned us without pity, brought from the region of the south the Muslims, to deliver us through them from the hands of the Romans. And if in truth we have suffered some loss, because the Catholic churches, that had been taken away from us and given to the Chalcedonians, remained in their possession; for when the cities submitted to the Muslims, they assigned to each denomination the churches which they found it to be in possession of (and at that time the great churches of Emessa and that of Harran had been taken away from us); nevertheless it was no slight advantage for us to be delivered from the cruelty of the Romans, their wickedness, their wrath and cruel zeal against us, and to find ourselves at people.
Michael the Elder, Chronique de Michael Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’ Antioche
Another supporting example is the Visigoth persecution.


In 711 CE, an oppressed Christian chief named Julian went to Moosa ibn Nusair, the governor of North Africa, with a plea for help against the tyrannical Christian Visigoth ruler of Spain, Roderick. Moosa responded by sending the young general Taariq bin Ziyad with an army of 7000 troops, burned their fleets, and defeated the 30,000 Visigoths. One of his remarkable speech was after burning his fleet -- "The sea is behind you, and the enemy is ahead of you, and you have no escape but the truth and patience." A new atmosphere of toleration began for the Jews. The Muslims had few men and needed help in every city they conquered to maintain their rule. The Jews helped the Muslims because they represented an opportunity to free themselves from the Visigoths. The Christians and Jews were liberated in Al-Andalusia. The Syrians welcomed the Muslims as their liberators since they liberated from their religious trouble and also relieved them of the burdensome taxes that that were placed on their backs. They praised the Muslims by announcing publically, "Praise be to God, who delivered us from the unjust Byzantines and put us under the rule of the Muslims".

The mere fact that Muslims did not coerce the inhabitants that they conquered to Islaam is attested by many [non-Muslim] writers.

Lawrence E. Browne writes in the ‘Prospects of Islaam’:
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.
James Michener states in ‘Islaam: The Misunderstood Religion’:
No other religion in history spread so rapidly as Islaam. 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.
K. S. Ramakrishna Rao writes in ‘Muhammad: The Prophet of Islaam’:
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.
Thomas Carlyle in ‘Heroes, Hero Worship, and the Heroic in History’:
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 Arnold in ‘The Call to Islaam’:
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.
Kenneth W. Morgan comments on the myths attributed to Islam Islam- The Straight Path: Islam Interpreted by Muslims:
Islam saved the Turks from wrong beliefs and superstitions, strengthened their characters, and taught them the true ideals for mankind. In return the Turks became the most sincere champions of Islam. They strove for its glory and expansion with their schools, learned men, and saints; they lived as persuasive examples of their faith; they spread Islam by pacific means. The expansion of the Turks by the sword was for economic or military purposes and not in order to force Islam on non-Muslims. They used the sword only in the defense of Islam, not for its expansion, but then they defended it with all their strength and when necessary with their lives. The highways and byways of Islamic countries have been strewn with the bodies of heroes who fell in defense of Islam.
Annemarie Schimmel states in Islam: An Introduction that:
The widespread idea that Islam made its way through the world mainly through fire and sword cannot be maintained.
Jonathan P. Berkey writes:
Popular stereotypes about Islam spreading by the sword, and older scholarly assumptions that most of the inhabitants of the Near East converted fairly quickly to the new faith in order to escape the onerous personal and agricultural taxes levied on non-Muslims, both radically misrepresent the complex situation faced by Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and others in the century or two following the initial Muslim conquests. In fact, what came to be known as the dhimmi communities, those monotheists who lived under a pact of protection (dhimma) with the Muslim state, survived and in many cases thrived for many generations.
Muhammad Zafrulla Khan writes:
In modern times, there are Muslims in Indonesia, in Egypt and in Morocco, in Russia, Central Asia and in South and Central Africa. The Iranians, the Pakistanis and the Turks are Muslims; Islam is professed in China, Cyprus and Yugoslavia. One may add that there is a number (not very large, but enough to merit mentioning) of converts to Islam of European or American origin. In the course of the centuries Islam has been able to amalgamate this variety of vastly different types into one group homogeneous at least in the religious aspect. This impressive feat has been achieved by very simple means: not, as is usually asserted, by the power of "fire and the sword," but by the strength of a religious dogma that is not too complicated to be understood by a simple and yet complex enough to satisfy the subtle mind, by virtue of a religious pattern not too difficult to uphold, and by a human attitude appealing to a great variety of men.
Islam and the Modern Age: An Analysis and an Appraisal

Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, Ilse Lichtenstadter; Bookman Associates, 1958
Planhol states:
The expansion of Islam seems therefore to be linked to means of communication; the religion spreads along trade routes and in coastal areas but is hindered by all natural obstacles to social life (mountain ranges and densely forested areas) as well as by the simple inertia of the rural population. . . . The Moslem religion may be thought of as a sort of gigantic octopus, the arms of which reach far down the main roads and project far in front of the animal's actual body
Op cit., p. 104.
H. A. R. Gibb writes after praising the Islaamic Expansion:
…more astonishing than the speed of the conquests was their orderly character. Some destruction there must have been during the years of warfare, but by and large the Muslims, so far from leaving a trail of ruin, led the way to a new integration of peoples and cultures. The structure of law and government which Mohammed had bequeathed to his successors, the Caliphs, proved its value in controlling these Bedouin armies. Islam emerged into the civilized outer world, not as the crude superstition of marauding hordes, but as a moral force that commanded respect and a coherent doctrine that could challenge on their own ground the Christianity of East Rome and the Zoroastrianism of Persia.
He further adds:
To the peoples of the conquered countries the Islamic conquest signified at first little more than a change of masters. There was no breach in the continuity of their life and social institutions, no persecution, no forced conversion.
If Muslims had not conquered, say, Egypt and imposed a jizyah and a kharaj, do you think it would be reasonable to say that Egypt would still be a mainly Christian country? After all Egyptians did not start to convert in large numbers until their last major rebellion failed in the mid-9th century. Would you agree that the main cause of that conversion was, as it happens, the Muslim conquest?
The inhabitants of Egypt did not have any ‘major’ rebellions during the Abbasid Dynasty and nor did they mass-convert after this so-called rebellion, rather, there was a gradual conversion from the advent of Islaam in Egypt to the 9th century. Additionally, the Egyptians welcomed the Muslims as liberators so I really fail to see why they would stage a rebellion.

If the Muslims did not enter Egypt, the Orthodox Church in Constantinople would have ruthlessly persecuted the heretics (i.e. Coptic Christians), and corruption would have increased as pre-Islaamic Egypt was deeply in debt since full bureaucratic control was not established or re-established.

Maududi is clear on this: as he points out, when Muhammed was in Mecca and only preached he coverted very few people. Once he moved to Medina and picked up the sword, he converted thousands. Do you agree that the use of force in Medina was vital to the growth of Islam?
This is fallacious for several reasons as it leaves out the fundamental aspects of the early conversions in Islaam. The Message was confined to his household and close friends until it was ready and commanded by Allaah to proclaim the Message. Once he announced the Message and gained some followers, each clan would deal with its own Muslims by imprisoning, tormenting, beating them; and they would stretch them out on the sun-baked earth of Makkah when the heat was at its height to make them renounce Islaam. Some of the early followers who were the victims of Mahzoom and other clans could not endure what they were made to suffer, and their persecutors reduced them to a state when they could agree to anything. However, what they have recanted was merely on the lips, and not in the heart. This is why the Prophet sent some of his followers to the land of the Abyssinians. Ergo, the reason why people did not enter the Deen in large numbers is ‘cause of the persecution and the malicious lies against the Prophet. Many entered in large numbers after the bloodless conquest in Makkah.

No serfs in Spain I expect. Can we agree that while the Muslims did not use the sword to force Christians and Jews (in any large numbers) to convert, in fact the conversion of any number of Spanish people was determined by the Muslim conquest? No conquest, no converts?
There were serfs in Spain and in fact, they joined Tareek’s army to gain freedom against the Visigoths.

Again, if Muslims did not act upon the plea from the oppressed inhabitants of Visigoth Spain, then clearly corruption would spread and the Visigoths would further persecute its Jewish inhabitants.

By all means. The Muslims converted a few local leaders and then they forced, by means of war, Islam on the rest of the Malay world. Europeans actually turneed up in time to see the last of the Buddhist Javanese states destroyed and just in time to save Bali.
Frankly, I do not appreciate your condescending approach to this topic by portraying Islaam as an ‘evil’ ideology that forced it’s way on the inhabitants through the hands of warlords.

Furthermore, what you have asserted is false. If you want to be acquinted with the Islaamic history in Malaysia, then read ‘A Short History of Malaysia: Linking Easy and West’ by Matheson Hooker under the chapter ‘The influence of Islaam’. It dicusses that Islaam gained many converts primiarly through the dawah of the many Muslim traders [mainly consisting of Chinese Muslims] and the Malay ruler to convert to Islaam: Megat Iskandar Shah.
Reply

Muslim Knight
04-02-2006, 01:32 AM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
The Muslims converted a few local leaders and then they forced, by means of war, Islam on the rest of the Malay world. Europeans actually turneed up in time to see the last of the Buddhist Javanese states destroyed and just in time to save Bali.
Muslim Arab merchants (not soldiers) came to trade to Malay Peninsular around 13th century and the local Malays (who were Hindu at that time) were attracted to Islam.

There was never a war between Islam and the rest of the Malay world. But there was war between Muslim Sultanate of Malacca and Buddhist Majapahit. During that time, Majapahit was an empire which sought to extend its own sphere of influence.

The Buddhist Javanese states were not destroyed. They converted to Islam. "Destroyed" can be applied when Christians wrested Jerusalem from the Fatimids during the Crusades, which resulted in a massacre.
Reply

HeiGou
04-02-2006, 09:28 AM
Originally Posted by kadafi
One of the main reason of the Islaamic expansion is to make the Word of Allaah supreme. What this entails is to promote free-thinking, eradicate superstitions and propagate the monotheistic belief that there is no god save Allaah.
Free-thinking? OK I;ll let that go. What does eradicating superstitions mean? Burning idols? Destroying temples?

For instance, many writers such as Forster praise the Islaamic Expansion for its moral influence in Africa. In fact, he is of the view that every nation that came in contact with Islaam has prospered.
Really? Nigeria is prospering? Mali? He really said that?

>Massive irrelevant cut-and-paste deleted<

Another reason for the advancement of the expansion was to exterminate oppression and install justice.
But the question is what does that oppresion and justice consist of?

To state a few examples, al-Baladhuri (Muslim historian) records that the people of the Syrian city of Hims, both Christians and Jews, proclaimed their reference for Muslim rather than Byzantine Rule, beging the Muslim soldiers to stay when the emperor Heraclius threatened to retake the city. Once the Muslims defeated the Roman army, they welcomed the Muslims with music and dance.
A late Muslim historian too. The later the less trustworthy but let us assume this is so. They did not rise in rebellion. It took the sword before Hims came under Muslim control, no?

This is supported by a text written by a Christian Syrian (after five centuries of Muslim rule in Syria). He writes:
This is why the God of vengeance, who alone is all-powerful, and changes the empire of mortals as He will, giving it to whomsoever He will, and uplifting the humble beholding the wickedness of the Romans who throughout their dominions, cruelly plundered our churches and our monasteries and condemned us without pity, brought from the region of the south the Muslims, to deliver us through them from the hands of the Romans. And if in truth we have suffered some loss, because the Catholic churches, that had been taken away from us and given to the Chalcedonians, remained in their possession; for when the cities submitted to the Muslims, they assigned to each denomination the churches which they found it to be in possession of (and at that time the great churches of Emessa and that of Harran had been taken away from us); nevertheless it was no slight advantage for us to be delivered from the cruelty of the Romans, their wickedness, their wrath and cruel zeal against us, and to find ourselves at people.
Michael the Elder, Chronique de Michael Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’ Antioche
Indeed. A famous quote. From a Jacobite. Sure, the Muslims could find mainly heretical sects that praised the Muslim presence. But again, no sword, no words of praise from Michael the Great.

Another supporting example is the Visigoth persecution.

In 711 CE, an oppressed Christian chief named Julian went to Moosa ibn Nusair, the governor of North Africa, with a plea for help against the tyrannical Christian Visigoth ruler of Spain, Roderick. Moosa responded by sending the young general Taariq bin Ziyad with an army of 7000 troops, burned their fleets, and defeated the 30,000 Visigoths. One of his remarkable speech was after burning his fleet -- "The sea is behind you, and the enemy is ahead of you, and you have no escape but the truth and patience." A new atmosphere of toleration began for the Jews. The Muslims had few men and needed help in every city they conquered to maintain their rule. The Jews helped the Muslims because they represented an opportunity to free themselves from the Visigoths. The Christians and Jews were liberated in Al-Andalusia. The Syrians welcomed the Muslims as their liberators since they liberated from their religious trouble and also relieved them of the burdensome taxes that that were placed on their backs. They praised the Muslims by announcing publically, "Praise be to God, who delivered us from the unjust Byzantines and put us under the rule of the Muslims".
Again the Muslims were able to find a traitor and some discontented religious minorities - just as Copts and Maronites did not exactly oppose the British and the French. And again, what counts here is the violent invasion of Spain. No sword, no "liberation".

The mere fact that Muslims did not coerce the inhabitants that they conquered to Islaam is attested by many [non-Muslim] writers.
Actually it isn't. Again you have not read what I said clearly - coercion comes in many forms and many degrees. They did not violent coerce all people immiediately into converting. They used a longer slower process of coercion, but coercion nonetheless. It was entirely dependent on military force.

Lawrence E. Browne writes in the ‘Prospects of Islaam’:
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.
I am happy to acknowledge, as I have done above and before, that this is a myth for Jews and Christians and Zoroastrians. But that is not my claim and so it is irrelevant.

James Michener states in ‘Islaam: The Misunderstood Religion’:
No other religion in history spread so rapidly as Islaam. 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.
Well we have established that he is wrong on the freedom of conscience bit. This is the problem with PC history writing. And actually all scholars accept the idea that it was made possible by the sword, because of course it was made possible by the sword.

>Another massive deletion<

The inhabitants of Egypt did not have any ‘major’ rebellions during the Abbasid Dynasty and nor did they mass-convert after this so-called rebellion, rather, there was a gradual conversion from the advent of Islaam in Egypt to the 9th century. Additionally, the Egyptians welcomed the Muslims as liberators so I really fail to see why they would stage a rebellion.
Actually they look as if they had a major rebellion to me. Why do you think they did not? And it is in fact in the mid-9th century that major conversions start. I'll agree that there is a slow gradual process, but Egypt remains a solidly Christian country until about then.

Some Egyptians welcomed the Arabs. And they did so without any knowledge of Muslims or Muslim rule. Can you really not see why they might rebel?

If the Muslims did not enter Egypt, the Orthodox Church in Constantinople would have ruthlessly persecuted the heretics (i.e. Coptic Christians), and corruption would have increased as pre-Islaamic Egypt was deeply in debt since full bureaucratic control was not established or re-established.
Well I accept the first bit. But at any rate, no Muslims.

This is fallacious for several reasons as it leaves out the fundamental aspects of the early conversions in Islaam. The Message was confined to his household and close friends until it was ready and commanded by Allaah to proclaim the Message. Once he announced the Message and gained some followers, each clan would deal with its own Muslims by imprisoning, tormenting, beating them; and they would stretch them out on the sun-baked earth of Makkah when the heat was at its height to make them renounce Islaam. Some of the early followers who were the victims of Mahzoom and other clans could not endure what they were made to suffer, and their persecutors reduced them to a state when they could agree to anything. However, what they have recanted was merely on the lips, and not in the heart. This is why the Prophet sent some of his followers to the land of the Abyssinians. Ergo, the reason why people did not enter the Deen in large numbers is ‘cause of the persecution and the malicious lies against the Prophet. Many entered in large numbers after the bloodless conquest in Makkah.
Well it is Maududi's claim but I do not see how your account contradicts his. The prerequisite for conversion was the use of force.

There were serfs in Spain and in fact, they joined Tareek’s army to gain freedom against the Visigoths.
And the evidence of this is?

Again, if Muslims did not act upon the plea from the oppressed inhabitants of Visigoth Spain, then clearly corruption would spread and the Visigoths would further persecute its Jewish inhabitants.
One man. Corruption being what in this case? Christianity? I am sure the Jews would have gone on being oppressed. But how does this relate to my claim?

Frankly, I do not appreciate your condescending approach to this topic by portraying Islaam as an ‘evil’ ideology that forced it’s way on the inhabitants through the hands of warlords.
I am sorry that you have misunderstood my tone and even more so that you have misunderstood my point. I do not believe that Islam is an evil idelogy.

Furthermore, what you have asserted is false. If you want to be acquinted with the Islaamic history in Malaysia, then read ‘A Short History of Malaysia: Linking Easy and West’ by Matheson Hooker under the chapter ‘The influence of Islaam’. It dicusses that Islaam gained many converts primiarly through the dawah of the many Muslim traders [mainly consisting of Chinese Muslims] and the Malay ruler to convert to Islaam: Megat Iskandar Shah.
I ma happy to have a read of it and get back to you. But I do not think what I asserted was false at all.
Reply

Abu Zakariya
04-02-2006, 10:55 AM
Maududi is clear on this: as he points out, when Muhammed was in Mecca and only preached he coverted very few people. Once he moved to Medina and picked up the sword, he converted thousands. Do you agree that the use of force in Medina was vital to the growth of Islam?
The period when Islam grew the most was during the treaty of Hudaybiyah, i.e. during peace.
Reply

kadafi
04-02-2006, 11:38 AM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
Free-thinking? OK I;ll let that go. What does eradicating superstitions mean? Burning idols? Destroying temples?
I have adequately explained the eradication of superstitions by inserting a quote from Smith.

Bosworth-Smith states:
Polytheism disappears almost instantaneously; sorcery, with its attendant evils, gradually dies away; human sacrifice becomes a thing of the past. The general moral elevation is most marked; the natives begin for the first time in their history to dress, and that neatly. Squalid filth is replaced by some approach to personal cleanliness; hospitality becomes a religious duty; drunkenness, instead of the rule becomes a comparatively rare exception.
Really? Nigeria is prospering? Mali? He really said that?
Surely you must know that Mali prospered greatly when its greatest rulers converted to Islaam. Or what about 1337 CE where Mali reached its Golden Age ‘cause of the solidifying presence of Islaam.

What about the Golden Age that flourished in Nigeria when Islaam was introduced?

So yes, Charles Forster who was a Christian cleric indeed said that.

A late Muslim historian too. The later the less trustworthy but let us assume this is so. They did not rise in rebellion. It took the sword before Hims came under Muslim control, no?
The 'lateness' argument is invalid considering that his statement is also supported by a Syrian Christian. And I will not assume anything that clearly happened. They did not rise in rebellion but welcomed them and this is a historical fact that one cannot deny.

Indeed. A famous quote. From a Jacobite. Sure, the Muslims could find mainly heretical sects that praised the Muslim presence. But again, no sword, no words of praise from Michael the Great.
What you fail to see is that Monophysitism was the dominant dogma during that period. Further, I find it preposterous that you have to come up with fatuous statements to undermine the intention of the praise by Michael.

Again the Muslims were able to find a traitor and some discontented religious minorities - just as Copts and Maronites did not exactly oppose the British and the French. And again, what counts here is the violent invasion of Spain. No sword, no "liberation".
Violent? Traitor? If you count Julian as a traitor for speaking out against the injustice committed by the Visigoths, then clearly I am not surprised if you condone the inhumane practises of the Visigoth Christians. And what was so 'violent' about the conquest? Historically, they did not plunder and the oppressed inhabitants (majority) welcomed them so could you please point to the violent nature of this conquest?


Actually it isn't. Again you have not read what I said clearly - coercion comes in many forms and many degrees. They did not violent coerce all people immiediately into converting. They used a longer slower process of coercion, but coercion nonetheless. It was entirely dependent on military force.
Could you point out historical evidences for this type of 'coercion'. Surely by now you must know that I do not accept your unsubstantiated assertions when it comes to history.

Well we have established that he is wrong on the freedom of conscience bit. This is the problem with PC history writing. And actually all scholars accept the idea that it was made possible by the sword, because of course it was made possible by the sword.
Nay, we have not established that he is wrong on the freedom of conscience; on the contrary, we have established that Islaam does encourage freedom of conscience. Your last point is an assertion and in fact goes against the statements of most historians.

Actually they look as if they had a major rebellion to me. Why do you think they did not? And it is in fact in the mid-9th century that major conversions start. I'll agree that there is a slow gradual process, but Egypt remains a solidly Christian country until about then.

Some Egyptians welcomed the Arabs. And they did so without any knowledge of Muslims or Muslim rule. Can you really not see why they might rebel?
I have to point again that you're fabricating stories that never occurred. There was no major rebellion nor did the major conversions start at the end of the 9th century. What I stated was that it gradually build up so that by the end of the 9th century, the majority were Muslims. 'Some' Egyptians did not welcome the Muslims, rather the majority welcomed them.

Well I accept the first bit. But at any rate, no Muslims.
So you recant your first claim that Egypt would be better off without the Muslim rule. By stating that the Muslims should not have entered Egypt, you're indirectly condoning the persecutions of the Orthodox Church.

Well it is Maududi's claim but I do not see how your account contradicts his. The prerequisite for conversion was the use of force.
The account elucidates and refutes your position that the prerequisite for conversion was the use of force. One must know that there was no 'force' used when conquering Makkah and yet people entered the crowds in huge numbers.

And the evidence of this is?
In the book 'The Jews of Moslem Spain Vol. 1', it is mentioned that:
The ranks of Tareek's army grew from day to day. They were joined by serfs who wanted to gain their freedom, by peasants who sought vengeance against the great landowners and wanted to get the land for themselves, and especially by followers of the House of Witiza.
One man. Corruption being what in this case? Christianity? I am sure the Jews would have gone on being oppressed. But how does this relate to my claim?
One man?

It is stated in 'The Jews of Moslem Spain Vol. 1':
All the while, numbers of Jews remained shut up in their houses, impatiently awaiting the outcome. Unlike the Goths and the clergy, they did not fear the invaders who besieged the city, but instead set their hopes on them. For the Visigothic kings had oppressed them sorely and had treated them with extreme cruelty. What memories must have passed through the minds of the Cordovan Jews on those nights as they sat in their houses and heard the footsteps of the guards on the walls....
Corruption being the oppression inflicted on them. It is worthwhile to mention that the sign of oppressesion occured when the Visigoths converted to Catholism.
When the Visigothic rulers changed from Arianism to another form of Christianity, Catholicism, in 586, the situation of the Jews changed. A period of disturbances and persecutions began. The synods of the clergy that assembled from time to time in the capital determined the policy of the regime; as a result, at every council that convened, zealous bishops promulgated decrees against the Jews. For their part, the kings vied with the clergy and spurted them on to find ways and means to institute laws to eradicate Judaism from the land. Whether this came from sincere religious zeal or from the avarice with which they eyed the possessions of the Jews, kings and clergy were of one mind -- to embitter the lives of the Jews and to provoke them to change their faith.
In 613 King Sisebut decreed that all the Jews must convert or leave the land. This edict was carried out; thousands were converted to Christianity and thousands left the country.
The Jews of Moslem Spain Vol. 1
Three months after ascending the throne King Ervig convened the twelfth Council of Toledo and urged it to use all possible means to extirpate the Jewish religion from Spain. Acting on his proposal, the council decreed that every Jew must convert within a year. It was also declared that the clergy should teach the Jews the tenets and practices of Christianity; converts were obligated to inform the authorities of the names of any former coreligionists who might transgress the laws of the church. Not only were Jews forced to become converted, but the civil rights of even these converts were limited.
A synod of the clergy in 638, known as the sixth Council of Toledo,decreed that the Visigoths should not tolerate any person who did not believe in Catholicism. It also declared that upon ascending the throne each king should be obliged to swear that he would carry out the laws against Judaism. At that time the ruler was Chintila, who fulfilled the wishes of the clergy. Thus it came about that many were compelled to become Christians and to sign the proclamations requiring their observance of Christian customs.
The Jews of Moslem Spain Vol. 1
The Jews tried to come up with many plots to overthrow the government but unfortunately failed.
Reply

Skillganon
04-04-2006, 04:13 PM
Guy's did Islam really spread by ther sword?
Reply

Kittygyal
04-04-2006, 04:14 PM
what do you mean by its sword?

take care
Reply

Skillganon
04-04-2006, 09:39 PM
I mean by the sword!
Reply

laylatul qadar
04-05-2006, 01:57 AM
People don't become muslims by force. Islam is a beautiful religon and who wouldn't want to accept it. Anywayz there's alot of historical proof that Islam wasn't spread by the sword like when prophet Muhammed (s) conquered Makkah with an army of 10 000 and didn't spill a drop of blood.:)
Reply

HeiGou
04-05-2006, 10:25 AM
Originally Posted by laylatul qadar
People don't become muslims by force. Islam is a beautiful religon and who wouldn't want to accept it. Anywayz there's alot of historical proof that Islam wasn't spread by the sword like when prophet Muhammed (s) conquered Makkah with an army of 10 000 and didn't spill a drop of blood.:)
Well some people did become Muslims by force. This is simply a matter of historical record. And in religion people are usually very conservative and so do not convert to anything or from anything without complusion. At least not in large numbers. To say Islam is a beautiful religion and hence who wouldn't want to accept it, is like a Hindu saying the same about Hinduism - would you really want to convert to Hinduism? I thought not. Do you see your contradiction in that last sentence? Of course it was spread by the sword - he conquered Mecca with an army of 10,000. And he did spill several drops of blood. At least to the best of my knowledge while the fall of Mecca was relatively bloodless some 54 people or so were killed.
Reply

laylatul qadar
04-05-2006, 10:27 AM
But islamis the most quickest growing religion in the world so that means people are willing to accept it without force.
Reply

HeiGou
04-05-2006, 11:03 AM
Originally Posted by kadafi
I have adequately explained the eradication of superstitions by inserting a quote from Smith.
And I have pointed out I am not commenting on the benefits of conversion in any way shape or form. How is this relevant?

Surely you must know that Mali prospered greatly when its greatest rulers converted to Islaam. Or what about 1337 CE where Mali reached its Golden Age ‘cause of the solidifying presence of Islaam.
Which is interesting, but still not relevant. I made no comments whatsoever on the benefits of converting to Islam. However since I did open the door, how do you know that Islam wasn't the result, not the cause, of that Golden Age? Mali has become more Islamic but less prosperous.

What about the Golden Age that flourished in Nigeria when Islaam was introduced?
I think Nigeria is still waiting for that Golden Age but we are still stuck in the same groove.

The 'lateness' argument is invalid considering that his statement is also supported by a Syrian Christian. And I will not assume anything that clearly happened. They did not rise in rebellion but welcomed them and this is a historical fact that one cannot deny.
Actually it still remains valid. His statement is not supported by Michael who says nothing, from what I can see, of Hims.

What you fail to see is that Monophysitism was the dominant dogma during that period. Further, I find it preposterous that you have to come up with fatuous statements to undermine the intention of the praise by Michael.
I fail to see it because I do not think it is true. Heraclius persecuted them because they were a minority. Among the Semitic peoples they may have been numerous, maybe even a majority.

Violent? Traitor? If you count Julian as a traitor for speaking out against the injustice committed by the Visigoths, then clearly I am not surprised if you condone the inhumane practises of the Visigoth Christians.
Anyone who conspires with his own country's enemies to forment a foreign invasion is, by definition, a traitor. I am not condoning anything.

And what was so 'violent' about the conquest? Historically, they did not plunder and the oppressed inhabitants (majority) welcomed them so could you please point to the violent nature of this conquest?
Your sources say the Jews let them in to the cities. That does not sound like a majority to me.

Could you point out historical evidences for this type of 'coercion'. Surely by now you must know that I do not accept your unsubstantiated assertions when it comes to history.
I never expected you would. Coercion being jizyah, kharaj and government support and pressure in favor of converts.

Nay, we have not established that he is wrong on the freedom of conscience; on the contrary, we have established that Islaam does encourage freedom of conscience. Your last point is an assertion and in fact goes against the statements of most historians.
Actually we have recently established that Islam does not grant freedom of conscience - that apostate in Afghanistan, do you think he ought to have died?

I have to point again that you're fabricating stories that never occurred. There was no major rebellion nor did the major conversions start at the end of the 9th century. What I stated was that it gradually build up so that by the end of the 9th century, the majority were Muslims. 'Some' Egyptians did not welcome the Muslims, rather the majority welcomed them.
You can point it out, but that does not mean I am fabricating anything. The Copts most certainly did rise, or at least al-Kindi says they did. The last time they did so was under al-Ma'mun (813-33). I do not much mind if you want to deny this but you cannot expect me to agree with you. If you want to deny what well-known Arab historians such as al-Kindi (pp. 73, 81, 96, 116-117) and Maqrizi (Khitat, 1270, 2:497) say please do. Perhaps you can explain to me why they would invent such a claim? The Ummayyads refused to allow conversion or at least strongly discouraged them among the tax paying peasant population. So that mass conversion is a phenomena of the Abbasid period. How do you know what the majority of Egyptians did?

So you recant your first claim that Egypt would be better off without the Muslim rule.
I don't think I have ever said such a thing. Certainly the Copts would have been and I am happy to make that claim.

By stating that the Muslims should not have entered Egypt, you're indirectly condoning the persecutions of the Orthodox Church.
Again I am doing no such thing.

The account elucidates and refutes your position that the prerequisite for conversion was the use of force. One must know that there was no 'force' used when conquering Makkah and yet people entered the crowds in huge numbers.
How can you conquer without force? They did not flock to Islam before their city was conquered. Suddenly with an Army of 10,000 standing by and their idols destroyed they do? You do not think that the pre-requisite for this was that army of 10,000 and the idol-smashing? If not, why didn't they convert earlier?

In the book 'The Jews of Moslem Spain Vol. 1', it is mentioned that:
The ranks of Tareek's army grew from day to day. They were joined by serfs who wanted to gain their freedom, by peasants who sought vengeance against the great landowners and wanted to get the land for themselves, and especially by followers of the House of Witiza.
Interesting claim. I will check the reference and get back to you. I notice the absence of hand-outs for Spanish people when the land was divided after the conquest.

One man?

It is stated in 'The Jews of Moslem Spain Vol. 1':
All the while, numbers of Jews remained shut up in their houses, impatiently awaiting the outcome. Unlike the Goths and the clergy, they did not fear the invaders who besieged the city, but instead set their hopes on them. For the Visigothic kings had oppressed them sorely and had treated them with extreme cruelty. What memories must have passed through the minds of the Cordovan Jews on those nights as they sat in their houses and heard the footsteps of the guards on the walls....
One traitor and some Jews then.

In 613 King Sisebut decreed that all the Jews must convert or leave the land. This edict was carried out; thousands were converted to Christianity and thousands left the country.
If they had stuck to that perhaps the Muslim conquest would never have got off the ground.

The Jews tried to come up with many plots to overthrow the government but unfortunately failed.
Unfortunately? Why do you say that?
Reply

HeiGou
04-05-2006, 11:04 AM
Originally Posted by laylatul qadar
But islamis the most quickest growing religion in the world so that means people are willing to accept it without force.
Sure. Especially if they are babies.
Reply

Ghazi
04-05-2006, 11:06 AM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
Sure. Especially if they are babies.
Salaam

I've seen middle aged people accept islam I've seen youth leave islam, it's by the will of allah that someone is a muslim, the fact they're brought up as muslims hasn't got nothing to do with it.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
04-05-2006, 11:08 AM
:sl:

Islam was spread by wisdom and understanding. Kindness and hardwork.

A muslim had to show what Allah had bestowed upon him to another muslim, or show some kind of blessing. Also show an excellent example in character which can only be applied thru Allahs blessings :p.

Lets take the story of when the prophet muhammad saws tied up to a pillar a man who had come to kill him. for three days he (saws) asked the man to accept islam. On the third day the man once again rejected islam so the prophet (saws) let him go. Then the man went to a nearby well and drank and came bak and accepted islam.

This clearly shows that the prophet (saws) forced nothing! and the literral sword was neva used except in defence however the sword of wisdom was used all the time ;)

:w:
Reply

Skillganon
04-05-2006, 02:51 PM
Originally Posted by Abd'Majid
:sl:

Islam was spread by wisdom and understanding. Kindness and hardwork.

A muslim had to show what Allah had bestowed upon him to another muslim, or show some kind of blessing. Also show an excellent example in character which can only be applied thru Allahs blessings :p.

Lets take the story of when the prophet muhammad saws tied up to a pillar a man who had come to kill him. for three days he (saws) asked the man to accept islam. On the third day the man once again rejected islam so the prophet (saws) let him go. Then the man went to a nearby well and drank and came bak and accepted islam.

This clearly shows that the prophet (saws) forced nothing! and the literral sword was neva used except in defence however the sword of wisdom was used all the time ;)

:w:
OK! since you said it so nicely I take your word for it! :thumbs_up
Reply

kadafi
04-05-2006, 03:45 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
Well some people did become Muslims by force. This is simply a matter of historical record. And in religion people are usually very conservative and so do not convert to anything or from anything without complusion. At least not in large numbers. To say Islam is a beautiful religion and hence who wouldn't want to accept it, is like a Hindu saying the same about Hinduism - would you really want to convert to Hinduism? I thought not. Do you see your contradiction in that last sentence? Of course it was spread by the sword - he conquered Mecca with an army of 10,000. And he did spill several drops of blood. At least to the best of my knowledge while the fall of Mecca was relatively bloodless some 54 people or so were killed.
Utterly false and totally contradictory when it comes to historical records. When Muslims conquered nations, they never forced its inhabitants to accept their faith despite the fact that they conquered them. This resulted the native inhabitants to view them as liberators. In additions, many nations embraced Islaam without Muslims liberating them. For instance, my native country which was one of the first African countries to embrace Islaam.

As for the conquest of Makkah, Stanley Lane-Poole writes:
The day of Muhammad’s greatest victory over his enemies was also the day of the grandest victory over himself. He freely forgave the Quraysh all the year of sorrow and cruel scorn with which they had afflicted him, and gave an amnesty to the whole population of Mecca……. No house was robbed, no woman insulted. One thing alone suffered destruction. Going to the Ka’abah, Muhammad stood before each of the three hundred and sixty idols, and pointed to them with his staff saying, ‘Truth is come, and falsehood is fled away!’ and at these words his attendants hewed them down and all the idols and household gods of Mecca and round about were destroyed.
I am very interested about these '54' people were killed apart from those who were accused of treachery.

And I have pointed out I am not commenting on the benefits of conversion in any way shape or form. How is this relevant?
You initially stated:
What does eradicating superstitions mean? Burning idols? Destroying temples?
Through their conversion, Islam eradicated sorcery, human sacrifices and all the other social evils that the Pre-Islaamic Africans used to practise.

Which is interesting, but still not relevant. I made no comments whatsoever on the benefits of converting to Islam. However since I did open the door, how do you know that Islam wasn't the result, not the cause, of that Golden Age? Mali has become more Islamic but less prosperous.
You failed to grasp what I have stated. One who has studied the history of Mali would have known that the Golden Age erupted after its greatest rulers converted to Islaam.

Actually it still remains valid. His statement is not supported by Michael who says nothing, from what I can see, of Hims.
Hims was part of Syria. Michael was talking Syria in general since the Muslims liberated whole of Syria and divided into four districts. So I cannot see how your argument gets the valid mark.

I fail to see it because I do not think it is true. Heraclius persecuted them because they were a minority. Among the Semitic peoples they may have been numerous, maybe even a majority.
Since the main features of your argument are speculations, I seriously suggest that you avoid them.

The Jacobites were not a minority. John L. Lamonte mentions that:
Monophysitism was the prevalent belief throughout the Asiatic provinces
The World of the Middle Ages: A Reorientation of Medieval History
Additionally Heraclius and Sergius tried to reconcile their beliefs with the orthodox belief in order to create unity but failed since the Chalcedonians and Sophronius opposed it and protested against it. They then tried to come up with a new formula to reconcile all four beliefs and the patriarchs accepted this formula 'till Pope John IV in Rome rejected it emphaticially. So thus, he issued an imperial decree. This has caused an all-war against the heretics.

Further, Heraclius also persecuted the Jews. Heinrich Graetz states:
When Heraclius entered the Holy City he was met by the vehement demand of the monks and the Patriarch Modestus for the extirpation of all the Jews of Palestine, at once a measure of revenge for their past treatment of the Christians, and a safeguard against the recurrence of the outrage if similar incursions should happen. The emperor protested, however, that he had solemnly and in writing promised immunity from punishment to the Jews, and to violate this pledge would make him a sinner before God and a traitor before men. The fanatical monks replied that the assassination of the Jews, far from being a crime, was, on the contrary, an offering acceptable to God. They offered to take the entire responsibility for the sin upon their own shoulders, and to appoint a special week of fasting by way of atonement. This argument convinced the bigoted emperor and sufficed to quiet his conscience; he instituted a persecution of the Jews throughout Palestine, and massacred all that failed to conceal themselves in the mountains or escape to Egypt.
History of the Jews - Vol. 3
Anyone who conspires with his own country's enemies to forment a foreign invasion is, by definition, a traitor. I am not condoning anything.
That's ludicrous. Julian who spoke out against the oppression perpetuated by the Visigoths is considered a traitor? It's quite loathsome to condone the practises of the Visigoths but condemn the ones who spoke against it.

Your sources say the Jews let them in to the cities. That does not sound like a majority to me.
I am perplexed as how this relates to the point that I am trying to convey? Would you agree that the Muslims should have never liberated Spain?

If Muslims didn’t liberate Spain, the Golden Age in Spain would have not flourished and if that didn’t flourish, Europe would still be wandering in the Dark Ages.

I never expected you would. Coercion being jizyah, kharaj and government support and pressure in favor of converts.
Prof. Arnold Thomas refutes your assertion:
There is abundant evidence to show that the Christians in the early days of the Muhammadan conquest had little to complain of in the way of religious disabilities. It is true that adherence to their ancient faith rendered them obnoxious to the payment of Jizyah - a word originally denoted tribute of any kind paid by the non-Muslim subjects of the Arab empire, but came later on to be used for the capitation-tax as the fiscal system of the new rulers became fixed ; but this Jizyah was too moderate to constitute a burden, seeing that it released them from the compulsory military service that was incumbent on their Muslim fellow- subjects. Conversion to Islam was certainly attended by a certain pecuniary advantage, but his former religion could have had but little hold on a convert who abandoned it merely to gain exemption from the jizyah; and now instead of jizyah, the convert has to pay the legal alms, azakat, annually levied on most kinds of movable and immovable property.
This is correct since the tax burden of Muslims is greater than the non-Muslims. In addition, Kharaj is payed for those who own a land that is conquered. That means, even if a non-Muslim converts to Islam, he has to pay the Ushr in addition to the kharaj whilst the non-Muslims only have to pay the kharaj. Furter, Muslims only pay the ushr if they own a Muslim land.

Also, in order to impose the Kharaj, one has to take into acount the reality of the land in order to prevent overtaxing the owners. 'Umar bin al-Khattab asked 'Uthmaan bin Haneef and Huzayfah bin al-Yaman after they had returned from surveying the land and fixed the Kharaj. How did you fix the Kharaj on the land? Perhaps you burdened the people you worked with what they cannot bear? Huzayfah said: "I left some extra." And ‘Uthman said: "I left the weak ones, if I wanted I could have taken from them."

Actually we have recently established that Islam does not grant freedom of conscience - that apostate in Afghanistan, do you think he ought to have died?
Islaam grants the freedom of conscience for accepting Islaam, however, let's keep on topic as you are known for side-tracking.

You can point it out, but that does not mean I am fabricating anything. The Copts most certainly did rise, or at least al-Kindi says they did. The last time they did so was under al-Ma'mun (813-33). I do not much mind if you want to deny this but you cannot expect me to agree with you. If you want to deny what well-known Arab historians such as al-Kindi (pp. 73, 81, 96, 116-117) and Maqrizi (Khitat, 1270, 2:497) say please do. Perhaps you can explain to me why they would invent such a claim?
You were fabricating that major rebellions occured, what al-Maqrizi reported are the minor rebellions led by Coptic peasants. It's funny to note that you haven't read Maqrizi's book Khitat (that hasn't been translated to english) but yet are boldy enough to quote from it?

The Ummayyads refused to allow conversion or at least strongly discouraged them among the tax paying peasant population. So that mass conversion is a phenomena of the Abbasid period. How do you know what the majority of Egyptians did?
Incorrect, The Ummayyads discouraged conversion due some secular reasons but this was at the start of the Ummayad Empire.

As for the majority of Egyptians accepting the Muslim rule, it is stated in many acclaimed historian books by non-Muslims and Muslims. I can give you the titles.

I don't think I have ever said such a thing. Certainly the Copts would have been and I am happy to make that claim.
So your abhorrent hatred for Muslims makes you condone the persecutions inflicted on the Copts before the Muslim rule? If it wasn't for the Muslims, the Copts would certainly have been exterminated by the Orthodox Church. And it's funny how you claim that Copts would have detested the Muslim rule considering that they regarded the invasion as a liberation.

How can you conquer without force? They did not flock to Islam before their city was conquered. Suddenly with an Army of 10,000 standing by and their idols destroyed they do? You do not think that the pre-requisite for this was that army of 10,000 and the idol-smashing? If not, why didn't they convert earlier?
What you fail to see is that Makkah was still ruled by the Mushrikeen. How could they convert to Islaam whilst the Mushrikeen persecuted every Muslim who openly declared his faith and did not make hijrah? In fact, some of those who resided amongst the Mushrikeen were Muslims but hided their faith.

Stanley Lane-Poole writes:
The day of Muhammad’s greatest victory over his enemies was also the day of the grandest victory over himself. He freely forgave the Quraysh all the year of sorrow and cruel scorn with which they had afflicted him, and gave an amnesty to the whole population of Mecca……. No house was robbed, no woman insulted. One thing alone suffered destruction. Going to the Ka’abah, Muhammad stood before each of the three hundred and sixty idols, and pointed to them with his staff saying, ‘Truth is come, and falsehood is fled away!’ and at these words his attendants hewed them down and all the idols and household gods of Mecca and round about were destroyed.
If they had stuck to that perhaps the Muslim conquest would never have got off the ground.
Again, indirectly condoning and yet have the audacity to claim that Muslims forced their faith on people. My probably conclusion of your statements is that you're not a student of history.

Unfortunately? Why do you say that?
It failed and hence the 'unfortunately'
Reply

renak
04-06-2006, 01:04 PM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
One ayah is sufficient to refute the myth that islam was spread by the sword:

http://www.islamicoutlet.com/islamic...uran/2_256.gif

2:256 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.

Muslims cannot convert people by force, hence we find it useless to try!

Any historical examination of events is actually secondary to this verse. And of course we can use statistics like Islam is the fastest growing religion in America.

Where are the muslims with swords in america?!?!
It may statistically be the fastest growing religion in America, I don't know. However, I would venture to say that all Muslim Americans I've ever known would be considered kafir by most people on this forum. Therefore, the number is probably quite low.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
04-06-2006, 01:05 PM
Originally Posted by renak
It may statistically be the fastest growing religion in America, I don't know. However, I would venture to say that all Muslim Americans I've ever known would be considered non-muslim by most people on this forum. Therefore, the number is probably quite low.
no they will be considered muslim if they say they are, we have no right to judge! But they may be weak muslims and that is indeed sad :(

:peace:
Reply

_Mujahida
04-06-2006, 01:08 PM
:sl:
Very interesting. Barak-Allahu feekum.
:w:
Reply

Islamicboy
04-07-2006, 12:43 AM
If any religion was spread by sword. Why would the people who were forced to follow the religion follow it? Unless they think its the right one. I mean if one of us were forced to do something every day and we did not like it or accept it. Would we still do it because someone forced us just one time i mean people wouldnt possibly be carrying sword walking around every day making sure the people who accepted islam by sword follow it. Why would the people forced to accept Islam make there children muslim? There are a lot of unanswered questions if people claimed that Islam was spread by sword.
Reply

Islamicboy
04-07-2006, 12:58 AM
Originally Posted by renak
It may statistically be the fastest growing religion in America, I don't know. However, I would venture to say that all Muslim Americans I've ever known would be considered kafir by most people on this forum. Therefore, the number is probably quite low.
First of muslims dont decided who is kafir and whos not thats why there is god Allaah S.W.T he is ultimate judge. American muslims being weak I am not sure which american muslims you have talked to because many American Muslims are very strong in the matters of Islam. The fact that muslims that live in american are struggle so much more. The muslims in america have to be careful of atheism which is spreading like wild fire in western countries. Lets not forget constant battle with there temptations women walking around half naked, music every where, interest, and haram being sold in all the stores. Yet there is many practising muslims in america Alhumdillaah. I lived in Saudi Arabia then i moved to Canada. I am still in touch with saudi arabia apparently over there people are having haram relationships and for some weird reason they want to be more like the west. But in canada i know many muslims majority did not have girl friends. Many brothers have beards and follow Quran and sunnah strickly. My cousins live in America they follow Islam Alhumdillaah. Yes there might be few but they are most probably immgrants and eventually after they have better understanding of islam they too will inshallaah be practising muslims. A muslims practising his religion in the west has more temptations yet he/she are more firm in there faith.
Reply

cleo
04-07-2006, 02:31 AM
Don't the sword mean the word from Allah?
Reply

north_malaysian
04-07-2006, 06:41 AM
In Malaysia

By trade - Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam

By sword - Christianity.
Reply

jinaan
04-07-2006, 06:08 PM
Salaam,

I just wanted to point out that the word jihaad does NOT mean holy war. It's very important to understand the words that we choose to use. Jihaad is a struggle. A struggle of any kind which you go through for you lord and religion. It could be anything from wearing hijaab as a muslim woman to living under religious prosecution. Also, I just wanted to let HeiGou know that the cusades were religious wars which focused on the killing of muslims and jews. It's hard to argue with facts agreed upon by historians. Also, lets not confuse leaders who claim to be muslim with the actual laws of Islam. There have been many leaders who have conquered lands with the excuse of "spreading Islam". The religion itself does not allow for this violence. If you would take the time to study your facts you would know that it is totally unlawful in Islam to spread a message of peace through violence. We look through history and find many cruel leaders who practiced a certain religion but were not the best representatives of that faith.
Reply

HeiGou
04-07-2006, 06:54 PM
Originally Posted by jinaan
I just wanted to point out that the word jihaad does NOT mean holy war. It's very important to understand the words that we choose to use. Jihaad is a struggle. A struggle of any kind which you go through for you lord and religion. It could be anything from wearing hijaab as a muslim woman to living under religious prosecution.
So the same as Crusade then?

Also, I just wanted to let HeiGou know that the cusades were religious wars which focused on the killing of muslims and jews. It's hard to argue with facts agreed upon by historians.
Actually the Crusades were focused on liberating the Holy Land. Nowhere was the killing of Muslims and Jews mentioned as anything other than a necessary part of the ultimate aim.

Also, lets not confuse leaders who claim to be muslim with the actual laws of Islam. There have been many leaders who have conquered lands with the excuse of "spreading Islam". The religion itself does not allow for this violence.
Can you name me one scholar who has criticised such violence? Can you name one Muslim writer who has criticised such violence?

Is it fair to say that there has never been a successful use of violence against non-Muslims resulting in plunder and/or conquest which Muslims did not approve of?
Reply

HeiGou
04-07-2006, 06:55 PM
Originally Posted by Islamicboy
If any religion was spread by sword. Why would the people who were forced to follow the religion follow it? Unless they think its the right one.
Someone who was forced to convert might not. But their children would go to religious schools and hear nothing else but Orthodoxy. They would believe.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
04-07-2006, 07:16 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
So the same as Crusade then?
Read about the crusades here:
http://www.load-islam.com/C/rebuttal...dersRefutation

From Pope Urban II:
exterminate this vile race from the lands of your brethren Christ commands it. [August C. Krey, The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eye Witnesses and Participants, (Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith, 1958)]

Can you name me one scholar who has criticised such violence? Can you name one Muslim writer who has criticised such violence?
The question should be who doesn't condemn it? When all terrorism has been denounced by Islam, it is quite obvious that such acts of violence are denounced as well.
Reply

extinction
04-07-2006, 08:47 PM
Hey everyone is like islam is spread by the sword .........what the heck is that supposed to mean... listen to this.....audio clip
Reply

HeiGou
04-07-2006, 08:50 PM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Can you name me one scholar who has criticised such violence? Can you name one Muslim writer who has criticised such violence?
The question should be who doesn't condemn it? When all terrorism has been denounced by Islam, it is quite obvious that such acts of violence are denounced as well.
Well Ibn Khaldoun. Does he condemn it? The late Maududi? Sayid Qutb? Tariq Ramadan? How many other people can I think of? I wonder if you might point me in the general direction of someone who condemned Muslim expansion?

Terrorism is of course a totally different matter.
Reply

Skillganon
04-08-2006, 01:35 AM
Islam was spread by the Sword!

In debunking the myth that Islam was "spread by the sword", the (non-Muslim) historian De Lacy O' Leary wrote:

"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 accepted."
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
04-08-2006, 01:44 AM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
Well Ibn Khaldoun. Does he condemn it? The late Maududi? Sayid Qutb? Tariq Ramadan? How many other people can I think of? I wonder if you might point me in the general direction of someone who condemned Muslim expansion?
1. You first asked for a condemnation of historical acts of violence and now you swithced to a condemnation of Muslim expansion!
Originally Posted by Ansar Al'Adl
Originally Posted by HeiGou
Originally Posted by jinaan
Also, lets not confuse leaders who claim to be muslim with the actual laws of Islam. There have been many leaders who have conquered lands with the excuse of "spreading Islam". The religion itself does not allow for this violence.
Can you name me one scholar who has criticised such violence? Can you name one Muslim writer who has criticised such violence?
The question should be who doesn't condemn it? When all terrorism has been denounced by Islam, it is quite obvious that such acts of violence are denounced as well.
We were talking about acts of violence and I pointed out that every scholar condemned such abuses. Trying to equate the Muslim expansion with acts of violence is an obvious case of horrible reasoning.

2. Every Muslim scholar condemns acts of injustice, abuse and violence. None of the people you mentioned condone violence. Tariq Ramadan responded to the following question:
You denounce the "ideology of fear," but what about Islamist terror?
Terror is a fact, not an ideology, and we must be very clear in condemning it (23/10/2005 MACLEANS magazine)
And he says
Everything, in the message of Islam, calls for peace and coexistence between men and nations. In all circumstances, dialogue must be preferred over silence and peace over war. That is to the exception of one situation that makes of struggle a duty, and of opposition a testimony of faithfulness to the meaning of faith. {Jihad} is the expression of a rejection of all injustice, as also the necessary assertion of balance and harmony in equity. One hopes for a non-violent struggle, far removed from the horrors of armed conflict. One loves that men will have this maturity of spirit that allows for a less bloody management of world affairs. However, history has proven that the human being is bellicose by nature and that war is but one means by which he expresses himself. Resisting the very violent expression of this tendency and trying to implement the necessary balance of forces are the conditions essential for attaining an order that is human. Situations whereby violence is sustained, repression imposed or rights denied, are the only time whereby violence is given legitimacy. (SOURCE)
Abu'l 'Ala Maududi writes:
it is essential for the preservation of human life that everyone should regard the life of the other as sacred and help to protect it. The one who takes the life of another without right, does not commit injustice to that one alone, but also proves that he has no feeling for the sanctity of human life and of mercy for others. Hence he is most surely the enemy of the whole human race, for if every individual suffered from the same kind of hard-heartedness, the whole human race would come to an end. On the contrary, if one helps to preserve a single human life, he is indeed a helper of all mankind for he possesses those qualities upon which depends the survival of the whole human race. (Tafhim Al-Qur'an)
And Sayyid Qutb states:
Orientalists have tried to paint a false picture of Islam, showing it to have been spread by the sword. These Orientalists know very well that this is absolutely false, but they deliberately try to distort the underlying principles of Islamic Jihad (Fi Zilalil Qur'an, vol. 7, p. 24)
So all these people condemned violence.

3. It seems to me that you are confusing two issues when you refer to Sayyid Qutb and Maududi. You are confusing their theories on the legitimate use of force with condoning violence, and as the quotes above demonstrate, there is no basis for equating the two. None of these people condoned violence. Every Muslim scholar has condemned violence.

4. Lastly, the Muslims you mentioned were prominent da'ees (or historians as is the case with Ibn Khaldun), not Islamic scholars.

Regards
Reply

samobosna96
04-08-2006, 01:44 AM
Maybe someone can clear this one up for me I am under the opinion that the Muslims in Indonesia, Malaysia and such came to Islam by the interaction with Arab merchants. They saw how honest these Muslims were and this intruiged them.
Reply

Skillganon
04-08-2006, 03:52 PM
Originally Posted by samobosna96
Maybe someone can clear this one up for me I am under the opinion that the Muslims in Indonesia, Malaysia and such came to Islam by the interaction with Arab merchants. They saw how honest these Muslims were and this intruiged them.
They accepted because their life was at stake! You don't have much choice when you got a sword under your neck, aint that true Heigou?
LOL!
Reply

Joe98
05-05-2006, 05:45 AM
Originally Posted by Rehmat
Allow me to expose this Jewish Myth in detail:
This phrase is very rude.

-
Reply

syilla
05-05-2006, 06:40 AM
i know that islam does not spread by SWORD...

but i was thinking... isn't that Islam has to show their strengths and power...so that the enemy will be afraid of us... (correct me if i'm wrong)
Reply

extinction
05-05-2006, 06:42 AM
islam was spread by the characteristics of the companions of the prophet s.a.w
Reply

HeiGou
05-05-2006, 09:22 AM
Originally Posted by hafizmo
islam was spread by the characteristics of the companions of the prophet s.a.w
Well correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Bedouin break away the minute Muhammed was dead and they had to be forced to return to Islam by the Armies of Abu Bakr? And despite being invited to become Muslims, didn't the Romans and the Persians in fact refuse and it took an Arab invasion to bring Islam to their lands? And in fact while I am at it, isn't it true that the spread of Islam during the Riashiddun and Umayyad periods stop where the Arab Armies stopped?

So in what sense did the characters of the companions of Muhammed spread Islam?
Reply

mizan_aliashraf
05-05-2006, 09:35 AM
Peace
Yes you are right. The books tell us that Islam was spread by da'wah and by the sword
Reply

Muslim Knight
05-05-2006, 12:06 PM
If Islam was so spread by the sword, can someone please tell me which Muslim army went to the Malay archipelago hence resulting in today Malaysia and Indonesia being Muslim dominated countries?
Reply

IceQueen~
05-05-2006, 12:09 PM
Originally Posted by mizan_aliashraf
Peace
Yes you are right. The books tell us that Islam was spread by da'wah and by the sword
islam was spread by the sword of TRUTH!
Reply

HeiGou
05-05-2006, 06:08 PM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Originally Posted by HeiGou
Well Ibn Khaldoun. Does he condemn it? The late Maududi? Sayid Qutb? Tariq Ramadan? How many other people can I think of? I wonder if you might point me in the general direction of someone who condemned Muslim expansion?
1. You first asked for a condemnation of historical acts of violence and now you swithced to a condemnation of Muslim expansion!
I have not switched at all. What is the difference?

Originally Posted by Ansar Al'Adl
Originally Posted by HeiGou
Originally Posted by jinaan
Also, lets not confuse leaders who claim to be muslim with the actual laws of Islam. There have been many leaders who have conquered lands with the excuse of "spreading Islam". The religion itself does not allow for this violence.
Can you name me one scholar who has criticised such violence? Can you name one Muslim writer who has criticised such violence?
The question should be who doesn't condemn it? When all terrorism has been denounced by Islam, it is quite obvious that such acts of violence are denounced as well.
You have switched from generic "violence" referring specifically to conquering non-Muslim land to "terrorism". I did not ask about terrorism. So if the real question is who does not condemn it, well, who does not condemn it? It is not obvious to me that someone who condemns terrorism will also condemn more conventional attacks on countries. Ask George Bush for instance.

We were talking about acts of violence and I pointed out that every scholar condemned such abuses. Trying to equate the Muslim expansion with acts of violence is an obvious case of horrible reasoning.
Which is precisely the problem with you switching from what I was talking about to terrorism. Let's stick with Muslim expansion. If the distinction between offensive and defensive warfare has any meaning, Muslims must have examined some cases of warfare and condemned them as offensive and hence unjust. Unless of course you are arguing that every single Muslim state that has ever expanded against any non-Muslims did so defensively. Is that your position? If not, where are the scholars who condemned a single act of expansion by Muslims against non-Muslims? Are you arguing that all such cases are justifiable or just that every single case so far is?

2. Every Muslim scholar condemns acts of injustice, abuse and violence. None of the people you mentioned condone violence.
I have read some of those people and I beg to differ. In certain cases they do condone violence. Ibn Khaldoun and Sayyid Qutb for instance. However that is not the point. Can you name a case of injustice, abuse and violence aimed at non-Muslims that resulted in the expansion of Muslim land that has been condemned by any prominent figure in the Islamic world? If they all do it surely you can point me to such a case.

Tariq Ramadan responded to the following question:

You denounce the "ideology of fear," but what about Islamist terror?
Terror is a fact, not an ideology, and we must be very clear in condemning it (23/10/2005 MACLEANS magazine)
Interesting. Wrong, but interesting. However I am not talking about terrorism so it is irrelevant.

And he says

Everything, in the message of Islam, calls for peace and coexistence between men and nations. In all circumstances, dialogue must be preferred over silence and peace over war.
>deletions<
So has Mr Ramadan ever mentioned a specific case where a Muslim has unjustly opted for war over silence and peace and coexistence?

Abu'l 'Ala Maududi writes:

it is essential for the preservation of human life that everyone should regard the life of the other as sacred and help to protect it.
And so does the late Maududi ever mention a specific case where a Muslim wrongly took sacred non-Muslim life unjustly in the course of an expansionist war?

And Sayyid Qutb states:

Orientalists have tried to paint a false picture of Islam, showing it to have been spread by the sword. These Orientalists know very well that this is absolutely false, but they deliberately try to distort the underlying principles of Islamic Jihad (Fi Zilalil Qur'an, vol. 7, p. 24)
Which is laughable given it has been Orientalists who have argued that Islam was not spread by the sword. But the question remains - does Qutb ever mention a specific case where Muslims unjustly expanded into non-Muslim land?

So all these people condemned violence.
Actually I don't think that any of those amount to a condemnation of violence. Especially as they are also happy to talk about Jihad which may be defensive, but is also violent.

3. It seems to me that you are confusing two issues when you refer to Sayyid Qutb and Maududi. You are confusing their theories on the legitimate use of force with condoning violence, and as the quotes above demonstrate, there is no basis for equating the two. None of these people condoned violence. Every Muslim scholar has condemned violence.
So they are opposed to the death penalty and stoning and hand chopping and flogging? All these are violent. You are using "violent" in an odd way.

Where do these gentemen ever condemn an act of expansion by a Muslim state against a non-Muslim state or is each and every such act justifiable in Islam?

4. Lastly, the Muslims you mentioned were prominent da'ees (or historians as is the case with Ibn Khaldun), not Islamic scholars.
I did not specify they had to be Islamic scholars. I wanted to give people as much room as they liked to find cases.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
05-05-2006, 06:56 PM
Hello HeiGou,
Originally Posted by HeiGou
I have not switched at all. What is the difference?
The claim that all Muslim explansion occured as a result of unjustified acts of agression is implicit when you equate condemnation of violence with condemnation of Muslim explansion. It should be self-evident that such a claim is unwarranted and without historical basis.
You have switched from generic "violence" referring specifically to conquering non-Muslim land to "terrorism".
The issue here is unjustified attacks on others, i.e. initiating agression against peaceful non-hostile neighbors. If attacks target the peaceful non-combatants it is terrorism.
Unless of course you are arguing that every single Muslim state that has ever expanded against any non-Muslims did so defensively.
I don't deny that historical there have been the odd cases of the abuse of power and unjustified violence, but these are unanimously condemned.
In certain cases they do condone violence. Ibn Khaldoun and Sayyid Qutb for instance.
Violence is the unlawful and unwarranted excercise of physical force. Everyone believes that law enforcement is essential to a functioning society; this does not mean that everyone condones violence. You are abusing the terminology here and hiding behind ambiguous terms. I believe in Islamic penal law, for example, but to say that Ansar Al-'Adl condones violence is an unjust allegation.
However that is not the point. Can you name a case of injustice, abuse and violence aimed at non-Muslims that resulted in the expansion of Muslim land that has been condemned by any prominent figure in the Islamic world? If they all do it surely you can point me to such a case.
If you ask any Muslim scholar "Are we allowed to commit acts of injustice, abuse and violence towards peaceful non-muslims?", there is not a single Muslim scholar who would say 'yes'. This should be obvious enough in and of itself. As for historical incidents where injustice and abuse have been committed against peaceful non-muslims, point out a case and then we can see if any of the Muslim scholars condone it.
Interesting. Wrong, but interesting. However I am not talking about terrorism so it is irrelevant.

So has Mr Ramadan ever mentioned a specific case where a Muslim has unjustly opted for war over silence and peace and coexistence?
Where has Ramadan written on the history of Muslim campaigns against non-muslims? The statement I quoted stands as evidence itself that you were completely wrong about him, since he views peaceful dialogue always to be the first.
And so does the late Maududi ever mention a specific case where a Muslim wrongly took sacred non-Muslim life unjustly in the course of an expansionist war?
As above. If he has never commented on injustices in Muslim history than how can you take silence as a sign of condonation?
Which is laughable given it has been Orientalists who have argued that Islam was not spread by the sword.
Err..what?? We're talking about more than Thomas Arnold here.

The rest of your statements are answered above.

Peace.
Reply

HeiGou
05-08-2006, 10:00 AM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
The claim that all Muslim explansion occured as a result of unjustified acts of agression is implicit when you equate condemnation of violence with condemnation of Muslim explansion. It should be self-evident that such a claim is unwarranted and without historical basis.
I do not think I have ever said that all acts of Muslim expansion occurred as unjustified acts of aggression. However if there is a serious Islamic law on just war and it is entirely defensive, there must be occasions where bad Muslims did bad things and so launched unjustified wars of aggression against non-Muslims. So I am not arguing about all of them. I am asking after one of them. Is there in fact a single case where Muslim scholars have condemned as unjust an act of aggression against non-Muslims? Can you point me to a discussion of where and when such acts are not acceptable with specific cases being mentioned?

The issue here is unjustified attacks on others, i.e. initiating agression against peaceful non-hostile neighbors. If attacks target the peaceful non-combatants it is terrorism.
I have no problem with that. The issue is unjustified attacks on others. I have been asking about that. I have not been asking about the separate issue of unjustified attacks on peaceful non-combantants which, as you say, might amount to terrorism.

I don't deny that historical there have been the odd cases of the abuse of power and unjustified violence, but these are unanimously condemned.
By whom and in which books? If I wanted to look up a case to find out the reasons for such attacks being unjustified, where could I look for a Muslim discussion of the rights and wrongs of such attacks with specific cases being mentioned?

If you ask any Muslim scholar "Are we allowed to commit acts of injustice, abuse and violence towards peaceful non-muslims?", there is not a single Muslim scholar who would say 'yes'. This should be obvious enough in and of itself. As for historical incidents where injustice and abuse have been committed against peaceful non-muslims, point out a case and then we can see if any of the Muslim scholars condone it.
It is obvious and yet it must also be obvious that you and I have different ideas of what injustice, abuse and violence mean especially when directed towards non-Muslims. Let me point you towards the case of Nuristan which for centuries held out against Muslim attacks (and so was known as Kafirstan) until the introduction of modern weapons where it promptly went down to a Muslim jihad. Just or unjust? However as there are so many case where non-Muslims have been attacked by Muslims, it would be easier if you could point me to a single scholar who makes a strong criticism of a specific case of expansion against non-Muslims. Which is all I have been asking for.

Where has Ramadan written on the history of Muslim campaigns against non-muslims? The statement I quoted stands as evidence itself that you were completely wrong about him, since he views peaceful dialogue always to be the first.
How can I be completely wrong about him when I have asserted virtually nothing about him at all? I do not know where he has done so which is why I asked you where he had done so. Can you tell me? I have no problem with the idea of peaceful dialog coming first although the problem is we may not agree on what that amounts to, the problem is with what comes next.

As above. If he has never commented on injustices in Muslim history than how can you take silence as a sign of condonation?
Well I think I can as it happens, silence in the face of injustice looks a lot like condoning injustice, but I don't think I have to as yet. All I ask is where he, or any other scholar, condemns any specific act of expansion by a Muslim state against a non-Muslim state.

So eventually I am going to reach a point where I conclude that no matter what the rules on paper are, Islamic laws on war are empty of content in that all wars of expansion against non-Muslims are always defended by all Muslims. Do you think that this is a sensible conclusion from the total lack of any condemnation of any specific cases so far? Or do I just need to do more research?
Reply

Nicola
05-08-2006, 12:17 PM
Originally Posted by mizan_aliashraf
Peace
Yes you are right. The books tell us that Islam was spread by da'wah and by the sword
I'm really surprised to find that not many Muslims realise this..
I thought it was a well known fact of history.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
05-08-2006, 12:43 PM
Hello HeiGou
Originally Posted by HeiGou
I do not think I have ever said that all acts of Muslim expansion occurred as unjustified acts of aggression.
Then why are you asking me to condemn Muslim expansion?
By whom and in which books? If I wanted to look up a case to find out the reasons for such attacks being unjustified, where could I look for a Muslim discussion of the rights and wrongs of such attacks with specific cases being mentioned?
You would have to identify the injustice first, and then research what Muslim historians have said about it. Why are you making the claim that Muslim scholars have never made such condemnations if you haven't read these scholars comments on any incidents of injustice?? You need to go do your homework and read up before making such claims and then asking me to go do your research.
Let me point you towards the case of Nuristan which for centuries held out against Muslim attacks (and so was known as Kafirstan) until the introduction of modern weapons where it promptly went down to a Muslim jihad.
And who was the Muslim ruler during the times when these alleged acts of injustice were carried out?
How can I be completely wrong about him when I have asserted virtually nothing about him at all?
You indicated that you felt he condoned acts of injustice against Non-muslims.
I do not know where he has done so which is why I asked you where he had done so.
Like I said before you are asking me to do your homework. If you don't know then don't make assertions on ignorance. Please do your own research.
So eventually I am going to reach a point where I conclude that no matter what the rules on paper are, Islamic laws on war are empty of content in that all wars of expansion against non-Muslims are always defended by all Muslims. Do you think that this is a sensible conclusion from the total lack of any condemnation of any specific cases so far?
What you call 'silence' is your lack of reading - if you've never read what a scholar has said about a historical injustice, how can you accuse them of condoning it??
Or do I just need to do more research?
Definitely.

Regards
Reply

HeiGou
05-08-2006, 01:54 PM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Then why are you asking me to condemn Muslim expansion?
Where do you think I have done that? I do not think I have ever once done that. I have consistently asked for a specific case where a Muslim scholar has condemned a specific case of expansion at the expense of non-Muslims. And I still have not got an answer.

You would have to identify the injustice first, and then research what Muslim historians have said about it. Why are you making the claim that Muslim scholars have never made such condemnations if you haven't read these scholars comments on any incidents of injustice??
Actually no, I do not think so. Unless War is discussed in entirely abstract and theoretical terms, Muslims scholars must discuss War with specific cases and examples. So I ought to be able to go to a book on Islamic law, look up the chapter on Jihad and find discussions of what Muhammed, and Ali and so on did and why it was right. And by way of contrast, why certain other cases were wrong. I have yet to make the claim that Muslim scholars have never made any such condemnations. All I have done is I have asked you and everyone else for an example of scholars making such condemnations and so far I have got nothing.

You need to go do your homework and read up before making such claims and then asking me to go do your research.
I need to make those claims before I am willing to accept criticism for them.

And who was the Muslim ruler during the times when these alleged acts of injustice were carried out?
Abdur Rahman Khan

You indicated that you felt he condoned acts of injustice against Non-muslims.
I am unhappy about the idea that you think I felt anything as I do not think that we share enough background for you to accurately guess what I think. And in this case I clearly have not said that anyone condoned acts of injustice against non-Muslims.

Like I said before you are asking me to do your homework. If you don't know then don't make assertions on ignorance. Please do your own research.
I am not asking you to do my research much less my homework. I have asked for a specific example of a Muslim scholar condemning an act of expansion against a non-Muslim power. I know of none. Can we agree that you know of none either?

What you call 'silence' is your lack of reading - if you've never read what a scholar has said about a historical injustice, how can you accuse them of condoning it??
How can I accuse them of being shape-changing inter-galactic blood-sucking lizards either? Well, in case I have to spell it out, obviously I can't. So it is a good thing I haven't. But I have repeatedly ask, nicely, for example of Muslim scholars condemning such behaviour and so far I have come up empty. As I cannot read every single book ever written by a Muslim scholar at some point I have to say that what I have read is representative of the field and the inability for anyone on this Forum to mention any other sources is highly suggestive.
Reply

Nablus
05-08-2006, 06:02 PM
Muslims were the lords of Arabia for a long time. For a few century the British and the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 20 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.


a great topic
Reply

HeiGou
05-08-2006, 06:07 PM
Originally Posted by Nablus
Muslims were the lords of Arabia for a long time. For a few century the British and the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 20 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.
a great topic
Given the self evident silliness of that above, why do you think so?

After all it reduces "using a sword" down to "killing all non-Muslims or forcing them to convert". This is the fallacy of the excluded middle - think of all the other things that depend on a sword. In this case: the Muslims used swords to invade Egypt, set up a discriminatory regime that taxed Copts and treated them like second class citizens, and generally encouraged them to convert. It is amazing that so many Copts have refused to convert. However that regime was and is entirely dependent on the sword - the Copts would never have voted for it or agreed to it except for the fact that they had no choice.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
05-08-2006, 08:14 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
Where do you think I have done that? I do not think I have ever once done that.
The last thing I want to do is waste my time getting into a childish game of who said what. This is what you said, I couldn't care less to argue over it:
I wonder if you might point me in the general direction of someone who condemned Muslim expansion?

I have not switched at all. What is the difference?
And I still have not got an answer.

I am not asking you to do my research much less my homework. I have asked for a specific example of a Muslim scholar condemning an act of expansion against a non-Muslim power. I know of none.
Because you have not asked any Muslim scholar about any specific acts of injustice! Ask any Muslim scholar, "Do you condemn acts of injustice commited by a Muslim against a Non-Muslim?" No person in their right-mind would respond with no! Now instead of doing your research and identifying a specific act of injustice and the comments of Muslim scholars on it, you instead ask me to hunt for an act of injustice in the entire history of Muslim and ask me to hunt for the commentary of multiple Muslim scholars on it! Well I must apologize HeiGou but I'm not going to do your research for you because that is EXACTLY what you are asking me to do.

So no, I am not going to fall into this game - I don't have the commentary of Muslim scholars on every event in Islamic history memorized with references. No one does. If you want to make a claim, then back it up. If you are not making a claim and want to know what Muslim scholars have said about events in Islamic history, then pick up a book and do the reading yourself.
As I cannot read every single book ever written by a Muslim scholar at some point I have to say that what I have read is representative of the field
Only if you have read an overwhelming majority of scholarly commentary on historical incidents. I suspect you have not, but feel free to prove me wrong. Please cite the historical works by Muslim Scholars which you have studied and which have failed to condemn the injustices commited when it was clearly on-topic.
I need to make those claims before I am willing to accept criticism for them.
No, you need to do your learning before you do your debating.
Abdur Rahman Khan
This is recent, long after the fall of the Islamic empire and had nothing to do with Muslim expansion. If there were injustices carried out against non-muslims then we unanimously condemn it, because that it what the Qur'an does:
16:90 Allah commands justice, the doing of good, and liberality to kith and kin, and He forbids all shameful deeds, and injustice and rebellion: He instructs you, that ye may receive admonition.
I clearly have not said that anyone condoned acts of injustice against non-Muslims.
Good.
Reply

bint_muhammed
05-08-2006, 09:07 PM
Originally Posted by root
At times YES!

at time some historians claim, however i believe it was Allahs rahmet, and the beuty of the religion itself.
Reply

Sardar
05-09-2006, 10:27 AM
the Dawah was that "Accept Islam or accept sword on your head". Millions went to sword or converted to Islam out of fear. The main proof is that 100's battle took place on Indian soil before Hindus lost and Islam was NOT there before the sword. Then bloody 1000 years of 9-11 took place on Indian soil. First 500 years nobody said anything. Then Sikhism was brought forth to counter it. The sword and destruction of temples are written in record sof emperors of India. One such book is Tawarikh-e-Jhangir. Where it si boased that in one year alone 10000 temples were crushed and so many were converted etc.
To be fair to Islam, the religion, these Kings were given directions from Mecca, NOT to spread Islam like that. BUT most of them were born from Hindu mothers and had to prove that they were no less muslims.

Sikhism was the balance and it put an end to violent religious spreading.
This is History and kids as young as toddlers were killed to punish parents who took death rather than convert.
This bad history doesn't make Islam bad people were bad. Like 9-11 doesn't make look Islam bad but makes bad people look like idiots who did it.
sardar
Reply

sonz
05-09-2006, 12:28 PM
Originally Posted by Sardar
the Dawah was that "Accept Islam or accept sword on your head". Millions went to sword or converted to Islam out of fear. The main proof is that 100's battle took place on Indian soil before Hindus lost and Islam was NOT there before the sword. Then bloody 1000 years of 9-11 took place on Indian soil. First 500 years nobody said anything. Then Sikhism was brought forth to counter it. The sword and destruction of temples are written in record sof emperors of India. One such book is Tawarikh-e-Jhangir. Where it si boased that in one year alone 10000 temples were crushed and so many were converted etc.
To be fair to Islam, the religion, these Kings were given directions from Mecca, NOT to spread Islam like that. BUT most of them were born from Hindu mothers and had to prove that they were no less muslims.

Sikhism was the balance and it put an end to violent religious spreading.
This is History and kids as young as toddlers were killed to punish parents who took death rather than convert.
This bad history doesn't make Islam bad people were bad. Like 9-11 doesn't make look Islam bad but makes bad people look like idiots who did it.
sardar
Sardar

dont u see how biased and how propagandic ur message is

chk this topic from the adminz

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ds-quotes.html

Quotations regarding the history of Islam:

“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.”
Author :F.J.C Hearushaw
Book Reference :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."
Author :
De Lacy O'Leary
Book Reference :
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.”
Author :
Robert Briffault
Book Reference :
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.
Author :
Lawrence E. Browne
Book Reference :
‘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.
Author :
James Addison
Book Reference :
'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.
Author :
A. S. Tritton
Book Reference :
in 'Islam,' 1951

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.

Author :
James Michener
Book Reference :
‘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.
Author :
K. S. Ramakrishna Rao
Book Reference :
'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!..
Author :
Thomas Carlyle
Book Reference :
‘Heroes, Hero Worship, and the Heroic in History,’ Lecture 2, Friday, 8th May 1840

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?...
Author :
Thomas Carlyle
Book Reference :
‘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.”
Author :
Simon Ockley
Book Reference :
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.
Author :
Thomas Arnold
Book Reference :
in 'The Call to Islam.'

This is why the God of vengeance, who alone is all-powerful, and changes the empire of mortals as He will, giving it to whomsoever He will, and uplifting the humble beholding the wickedness of the Romans who throughout their dominions, cruelly plundered our churches and our monasteries and condemned us without pity, brought from the region of the south the sons of Ishmael, to deliver us through them from the hands of the Romans. And if in truth we have suffered some loss, because the Catholic churches, that had been taken away from us and given to the Chalcedonians, remained in their possession; for when the cities submitted to the Arabs, they assigned to each denomination the churches which they found it to be in possession of (and at that time the great churches of Emessa and that of Harran had been taken away from us); nevertheless it was no slight advantage for us to be delivered from the cruelty of the Romans, their wickedness, their wrath and cruel zeal against us, and to find ourselves at people. (Michael the Elder, Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch wrote this text in the latter part of the twelfth century, after five centuries of Muslim rule in that region.)
Author :
Michael the Elder (Great)
Book Reference :
'Michael the Elder, Chronique de Michael Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’ Antioche,' J.B. Chabot, Editor, Vol. II, Paris, 1901

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.
Author :
James Addison
Book Reference :
'The Christian Approach to the Moslem,' p. 35

In the eyes of history, religious toleration is the highest evidence of culture in a people....It was not until the Western nations broke away from their religious law that they became more tolerant, and it was only when the Muslims fell away from their religious law that they declined in tolerance and other evidences of the highest culture. Before the coming of Islam it (tolerance) had never been preached as an essential part of religion...
Author :
Marmaduke Pickthall
Book Reference :
1927 Lecture on 'Tolerance in Islam,' Madras, India

If Europe had known as much of Islam, as Muslims knew of Christendom, in those days, those mad, adventurous, occasionally chivalrous and heroic, but utterly fanatical outbreak known as the Crusades could not have taken place, for they were based on a complete misapprehension...
Author :
Marmaduke Pickthall
Book Reference :
1927 Lecture on 'Tolerance in Islam,' Madras, India

The tolerance within the body of Islam was, and is, something without parallel in history; class and race and color ceasing altogether to be barriers.

Author :
Marmaduke Pickthall
Book Reference :
1927 Lecture on 'Tolerance in Islam,' Madras, India
Reply

bint_muhammed
05-09-2006, 07:32 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
Although would you agree that a fair number of Muslims managed to acquire a fair amount of wealth along the way?
as american r doing NOW? how BRITAIN did in india, china an many many more countries!:rollseyes :rollseyes
Reply

HeiGou
05-10-2006, 06:52 AM
Originally Posted by ya_Giney
as american r doing NOW? how BRITAIN did in india, china an many many more countries!:rollseyes :rollseyes
Well I do not accept America is. But me apart, do you know anyone who denies it?
Reply

bint_muhammed
05-10-2006, 05:03 PM
believe what you wanna believe however hav you ever wondered that islamic converts are the most in world, and is increasing. i dont see any1 using a sword against them. however its obvious that the muslims are the one being oppressed in this day and age GUANTANAMO BAY for example, where inocent muslims are captured and are mistreated.
Reply

ISDhillon
05-18-2006, 10:31 PM
Originally Posted by Moss
I didnt say it was not deliberate. read my post again. I said its whats a lot of people are taught from when they are kids, and it is lies i suppose. Its a shame. But it happens the other way round too. How many lies are told to sikh children about how islam was spread by the sword. They are lies aswell. But that doesnt put Sikhism at fault, just people who made the lies

Actually we have evidence that their were many forced conversion during our gurus time, the 9th guru gave his head because he said to the then emporor that is you can convert me then all the pudits in kashmir will become muslims too, but they beheaded his cos he refused to embrace isalm, the 7 and 9 year old sahibzades were walled alive by the muslim leaders in sirhind cos they refused to embrace islam in fact their are many horrible stories which are a part of our history their not lies:

http://www.sikh-history.com/sikhhist...rs/nojava.html

look at each section this is actual history. In fact akabar was possibly the only tolerant one. Ahmed shah abdali 100000 of women by force to persia. Islam was probably not always spread by sword but land that was taken by force and then islam was used as a weapon against non-believer even gurbani talks of this in detail.

But nowhere did our parents teach us to hate islam we understand that the people went astray thats why sikhism came.

ISDhillon
Reply

Mohsin
05-18-2006, 10:36 PM
Originally Posted by ISDhillon
Actually we have evidence that their were many forced conversion during our gurus time, the 9th guru gave his head because he said to the then emporor that is you can convert me then all the pudits in kashmir will become muslims too, but they beheaded his cos he refused to embrace isalm, the 7 and 9 year old sahibzades were walled alive by the muslim leaders in sirhind cos they refused to embrace islam in fact their are many horrible stories which are a part of our history their not lies:

http://www.sikh-history.com/sikhhist...rs/nojava.html

look at each section this is actual history. In fact akabar was possibly the only tolerant one. Ahmed shah abdali 100000 of women by force to persia. Islam was probably not always spread by sword but land that was taken by force and then islam was used as a weapon against non-believer even gurbani talks of this in detail.

But nowhere did our parents teach us to hate islam we understand that the people went astray thats why sikhism came.

ISDhillon

If islam was using force to spread islam then it would have forced the whole of india to convert during the century it ruled there. Just because some rulers tried to do it, it's not true to say someone actually converted because of it. Its quite illogical to say so, since you cant logically force someone, if on the outside they pretend to convert, then later on their own they'll be different.
Reply

ISDhillon
05-18-2006, 10:41 PM
Originally Posted by Moss
If islam was using force to spread islam then it would have forced the whole of india to convert during the century it ruled there. Just because some rulers tried to do it, it's not true to say someone actually converted because of it. Its quite illogical to say so, since you cant logically force someone, if on the outside they pretend to convert, then later on their own they'll be different.

the reason why islam did not force everyone is cos we put an end to it their is a famous quote by bulleh shah perhaps that will be more befitting:

A popular couplet by Sayin Bulleh Shah is :
Na karoon baat ab kee,na karoon baat tab kee
Gar na hotey Guru Gobind Singh,sunat hoti sabh kee

translated as:

I talk not of now,I talk not of then
But had there been no Guru Gobind Singh,all would be circumcized today

just have a look on the internet and see, indonesia and malyasia were trade based conversion, in India it was by force in fact at times 700 people were beheaded a day thats what the butchers did, remember it is the religion which gets the right to write that period of its history not the tyrants.
Reply

Mohsin
05-18-2006, 10:43 PM
Originally Posted by ISDhillon

just have a look on the internet and see, .

Lol says it all

You'll have to bring proof to show how islam forced itself on the rest of India. I'm suprised your making such comments bro, i thought better of you. its a shame you've come to this.
Reply

ISDhillon
05-18-2006, 10:45 PM
Originally Posted by Moss
Lol says it all

You'll have to bring proof to show how islam forced itself on the rest of India. I'm suprised your making such comments bro, i thought better of you. its a shame you've come to this.

where are your proofs that it wasnt you got a time machine or somethin?;D

we are a living proof maybe your ashamed that your ancestors were scared of death so became muslims, dont worry its not your fault lol:)
Reply

jss
05-18-2006, 10:47 PM
Originally Posted by Moss
If islam was using force to spread islam then it would have forced the whole of india to convert during the century it ruled there. Just because some rulers tried to do it, it's not true to say someone actually converted because of it. Its quite illogical to say so, since you cant logically force someone, if on the outside they pretend to convert, then later on their own they'll be different.

It is common knowledge that many people were converted to Islam by force in the Indian subcontinent, either to choose Islam or death, from babars times to Aurangzeb. Any research that you do will prove that right. The conversion of the whole of India did not occur because of opposition from the Sikhs, Marathas, Rajputs and others but significantly because of the sacrifice of the ninth Guru-Guru Teg Bahadur Ji Maharaj
Reply

jss
05-18-2006, 10:52 PM
Originally Posted by Moss
Lol says it all

You'll have to bring proof to show how islam forced itself on the rest of India. I'm suprised your making such comments bro, i thought better of you. its a shame you've come to this.

What happened is accepted fact, I'm surprised you didn't know.
Internet is a starting point, use every resource possible from books to visiting the indian subcontinent, museums, historical sites, scripts from that time period. I'm sure it will all point toward the same conclusion
Reply

Mohsin
05-18-2006, 10:53 PM
Originally Posted by jss
It is common knowledge that many people were converted to Islam by force in the Indian subcontinent, either to choose Islam or death, from babars times to Aurangzeb. Any research that you do will prove that right. The conversion of the whole of India did not occur because of opposition from the Sikhs, Marathas, Rajputs and others but significantly because of the sacrifice of the ninth Guru-Guru Teg Bahadur Ji Maharaj

Problem is Islam was in India long before Sikhism started. So how was it spreading then. And it kept spredaing peacefully even after Sikhism came, even today there are thousands of reverts in India.

Guys think logically, Islam spread peacefully in Saudi Arabia, accross other Arab countries, across Malaysia and Indonesia, and in the last century has continued to spread peacefully, but in India it suddenly decided to use force?? :? Also, muslims as you would now fully believe in their faith, they don't think you would need to force anyone to convert to islam. They fully believe its the truth. Guys think about it

Remember, what a few Moghal rulers did does not represent the way it spread the rest of the time
Reply

Mohsin
05-18-2006, 10:55 PM
Originally Posted by jss
What happened is accepted fact, I'm surprised you didn't know.
Internet is a starting point, use every resource possible from books to visiting the indian subcontinent, museums, historical sites, scripts from that time period. I'm sure it will all point toward the same conclusion

I'm not denying it happened to a certain extent with some Gurus, but generally it didn't happen. Logic will tell you. Its impossible to forrce people to convert, when your not there they'll practice what they want. And muslims have full conviction in their religion. Not all practice it but nearly all believe. No matter how non-practicing one is, they will never believe you would need to force a persoan to convert. They honestly believe its the truth
Reply

jss
05-18-2006, 11:02 PM
Originally Posted by Moss
Problem is Islam was in India long before Sikhism started. So how was it spreading then. And it kept spredaing peacefully even after Sikhism came, even today there are thousands of reverts in India.

Guys think logically, Islam spread peacefully in Saudi Arabia, accross other Arab countries, across Malaysia and Indonesia, and in the last century has continued to spread peacefully, but in India it suddenly decided to use force?? :? Also, muslims as you would now fully believe in their faith, they don't think you would need to force anyone to convert to islam. They fully believe its the truth. Guys think about it

Remember, what a few Moghal rulers did does not represent the way it spread the rest of the time
I'm not asking you to believe me, what I am stating is not to have a swipe at Islam but mere fact. You can find out for yourself if you don't believe me.
There may have been some Muslims before Guru Nanak Dev Ji's times in India without doubt. But the bulk of forced conversions began with Babar and other rulars such as Aurangzeb and many people were converted out of fear.
Again you may not trust me or the internet, fair play but do the research for yourself.
Reply

ISDhillon
05-18-2006, 11:05 PM
Originally Posted by Moss
I'm not denying it happened to a certain extent with some Gurus, but generally it didn't happen. Logic will tell you. Its impossible to forrce people to convert, when your not there they'll practice what they want. And muslims have full conviction in their religion. Not all practice it but nearly all believe. No matter how non-practicing one is, they will never believe you would need to force a persoan to convert. They honestly believe its the truth

You need to do some serious reading boy:

http://www.sikh-history.com/sikhhist/events/khalsa.html

http://www.san.beck.org/2-9-MughalEmpire1526-1707.html

http://www.answers.com/topic/islamic...-of-south-asia

I hope you actually read this, and what has logic got to do with it when someones threatning you with death what decision are you gonna make, these preachers who tell you these stories are the mother of all propaganda.

I hope you see sense,

ISDhillon
Reply

jsc
05-18-2006, 11:11 PM
Originally Posted by ISDhillon
in my opinion this site has no credibility. to start with, its racist and contains inacurate infomation about Sikhs...
Reply

ISDhillon
05-18-2006, 11:13 PM
Originally Posted by jsc
in my opinion this site has no credibility. to start with, its racist and contains inacurate infomation about Sikhs...
I wonder what evidence moss has to prove islam was not spread by sword in india?
Reply

jss
05-18-2006, 11:15 PM
Originally Posted by ISDhillon
I wonder what evidence moss has to prove islam was not spread by sword in india?
Denying that is like denying that the holocaust ever took place.
Anyways i'm off
nite nite ppl :thankyou:
Reply

jsc
05-18-2006, 11:23 PM
Force conversions did take place.

even the decendents of emperor jehangir (who along side chandu (a brahmin hindu) had Guru Sahib Ji martyred) went to darbar sahib (golden temple) afew years back to ask for forgiviness. because their family had recieved nuthing but bad luck and they believed that was the reason why-they kept there islamic values but went to darbar sahib to ask forgivness. i aint got evidence of this offhand, but if anybody wants, im sure i can dis up the article somewhere.

mass forced conversions did take place. any person can find out with alittle research.
Reply

ISDhillon
05-18-2006, 11:25 PM
Originally Posted by jsc
Force conversions did take place.

even the decendents of emperor jehangir (who along side chandu (a brahmin hindu) had Guru Sahib Ji martyred) went to darbar sahib (golden temple) afew years back to ask for forgiviness. because their family had recieved nuthing but bad luck and they believed that was the reason why-they kept there islamic values but went to darbar sahib to ask forgivness. i aint got evidence of this offhand, but if anybody wants, im sure i can dis up the article somewhere.

mass forced conversions did take place. any person can find out with alittle research.
----

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040415/punjab1.htm#9
Reply

jsc
05-18-2006, 11:31 PM
Originally Posted by ISDhillon
singh, u dont waste time do u. this aint the article i read, but itll do!
Reply

Khoza
05-19-2006, 08:00 AM
Originally Posted by Moss
Problem is Islam was in India long before Sikhism started. So how was it spreading then. And it kept spredaing peacefully even after Sikhism came, even today there are thousands of reverts in India.

Guys think logically, Islam spread peacefully in Saudi Arabia, accross other Arab countries, across Malaysia and Indonesia, and in the last century has continued to spread peacefully, but in India it suddenly decided to use force?? :? Also, muslims as you would now fully believe in their faith, they don't think you would need to force anyone to convert to islam. They fully believe its the truth. Guys think about it

Remember, what a few Moghal rulers did does not represent the way it spread the rest of the time
Islam was spread by the sword aswell since SOME moghul emperors were giving the natives the choices between death or Islam, India has a huge population and the muslim population is fairly large too the reason why more Indians weret forced to covert was because only some emperors used such policies and there was resistance being put up. There are also clear facts that show that thousands of Hindu women were taken from India and sold off as wives in Afghanistan. Therefore a FEW moghul emperors had a huge effect infact western historians believe that during the moghul rule in India upto 80 million Hindus and other non-muslims were killed.
Reply

Mohsin
05-19-2006, 09:32 AM
Dhillon, you can't prove Islam was spread by the sword.

Look at Saudi arabia during the prophets time, everyone converted. At the conquest of Mecca everyone was forgiven, and gradually they all converted. No force!

Indonesia and malaysia. Lets take Indonesia as an example, FOUR muslims went to Indonesia, and the whole country converted through their actions and morals, No Force!

Today, conversions left right and centre. Just go on website and you'll find a hundred. http://thetruereligion.org/modules/xfsection/ No Force!

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ours-here.html This is stories of converts from people on this site. No Force!

Still 14 million christians in saudi arabia, No Force!

I hope its clear now. Like i said, i'm sure some rulers did try to do it. But it wouldn't have made a difference. islam is Haq, people would still have converted. Go india today and see how many Hindus are converting by the works of people like Dr Zakir Naik.
Before Sikhism came, people were converting. Before the Moghul rulers people were converting. After Sikhism, where it apparently stopped the forced conversions, peoople have continued to revert. Either Sikhism didn't do a good job, or its peaceful conversions, you decide ;D

I hope this is suffciecient proof islam was not spread by the sword. For more information go to here http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...ead-sword.html

In fear of getting warnings, we should stay on topic, so i request if mods can move this to the other thread, and if you have any more allegations against islam discuss it there
Reply

Ayesha Rana
05-19-2006, 10:41 AM
Originally Posted by ISDhillon
post deleted
Not impressed. you don't sound funny. People cannot be forced to follow Islam if they did not believe in it from their hearts.:rollseyes You can't be a Muslim if you don't truly believe so there wouldn't have been any point in supposedly making someone into a Muslim. It just does'nt work that way.
Reply

ISDhillon
05-19-2006, 10:47 AM
Originally Posted by Moss
You siad that, so i posted revelavant proofs showing how islam was not spread by the sword. Your more illogical than i thoight if you think Islam was spread by the sword. But i suppose if thats what makes you feel better and keeps your mind at ease that Islam can't get real conversions then so be it

illogical? - the forced conversion were in india you started telling me about other countries, what does that have to do with anything, if you believe that islam was not spread by the sword in india you need to prove this to me not derail the debate by taliking about other countries thats irrelevant, do you even know what logic means, youve heard ne person go on about me being illogical and thats youre only weapon now, i suggest you get over it

isdhillon:)
Reply

Mohsin
05-19-2006, 10:52 AM
Originally Posted by ISDhillon
illogical? - the forced conversion were in india you started telling me about other countries, what does that have to do with anything, if you believe that islam was not spread by the sword in india you need to prove this to me not derail the debate by taliking about other countries thats irrelevant, do you even know what logic means, youve heard ne person go on about me being illogical and thats youre only weapon now, i suggest you get over it

isdhillon:)

Bro listen. if islam spread peacefully everywhere else, then is it so hard to believe the same happened in the indian subcontinent. it doesn't matter, just look today. Theres loads of converts there now. Thats living proof of peaceful conversions. Like i said before, you can't force someone to convert. If someone said they'll convert in fear of not living, they then will return to their original belief when noone is around
Reply

ISDhillon
05-19-2006, 10:52 AM
Originally Posted by Ayesha Rana
true dont bring it up again.

cheers;D

ISDhillon
Not impressed. you don't sound funny. People cannot be forced to follow Islam if they did not believe in it from their hearts.:rollseyes You can't be a Muslim if you don't truly believe so there wouldn't have been any point in supposedly making someone into a Muslim. It just does'nt work that way.[/QUOTE]


the first generation accept islam cos they are otherwise going to get killed, then cos they cant accept the fact that they were cowards (to protect their ego) they then bring theire children up in islam and the children dont know their parents were cowards, so they as you have suggested accept islam in their hearts, this is how it works, in future dont just skim the surface actually look at the whole facts, there are many sikhs who were focfully converted to islam during partition and their children have been brainwashed about their infidel past. But at the same time their are many and i would know cos my mum works for citizens advice bureau who have changed their name and have come back to the true path of sikhi and their parents deep in their hearts would like to come back to but they have too many obligation so make a sacrifice for their duty.

Have a nice day,:thankyou:

ISDhillon

ps remember this was not supposed to turn into a debate about conversions.
Reply

ISDhillon
05-19-2006, 10:55 AM
Originally Posted by Moss
Bro listen. if islam spread peacefully everywhere else, then is it so hard to believe the same happened in the indian subcontinent. it doesn't matter, just look today. Theres loads of converts there now. Thats living proof of peaceful conversions. Like i said before, you can't force someone to convert. If someone said they'll convert in fear of not living, they then will return to their original belief when noone is around

is this logical? lol you now want me to logically conclude that isalm may have been spread in some places (even though i dont believe that either) peacefully then it must have done the same in india, the problem is we have shown through an abundance of proof that it wasnt and even god could no longer bear the tyranny so started another religion, the proof is so stark but you keep brininging in other issues you better make sure you never call me illogical again;D
Reply

jsc
05-19-2006, 11:15 AM
islam was (and is) primaliry a peace loving religion.
but it is a fact that rulers ahve used the sword (and other means) to persuade on-muslims to convert.
Just to name afew well knows examples:
Sri guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib Ji was beheadded for his steadfast beleaf..
Bhai Mati Das Sahib was swordes in half starting from his head for not chaning hjis belief
Bhai Sati Das Sahib was wrapped in cotton and burnt alive
and Bhai Dyala Das Sahib was beaten and boiled alive.
The 2 youngest martyres in history were the 2 brave sons of Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji who were walled alive for their steadfast in Sikhism. Emperor Aurungzeb offred the young boys many riches on the condiditon of their conversion. The children (after being tought by their grandmother) remained steadfast in their faith thus becoming the youngest martyrs ever in history.

the only option in these days was death ot islam.

Hundreds of thousands of incidents like these have taken place in India at the hands of mughal rulkers.

im not saying all muslims are tyrants, and im not saying every1 who converted did it out of fear, but yes forced conversions did happen, had have been happeningrecentry in the uk aswell (and probably in other aprts of the world aswell).
Reply

Daffodil
05-19-2006, 11:22 AM
People cannot be forced to follow Islam if they did not believe in it from their hearts.
Ur forgetting the biggest and most important point here. If people were "forced" in wateva way to accept islam even tho they didnt have the real conviction in their hearts, they wud still bring their children up as muslims, if not properly but just call them muslims, then their children wud find out more about islam n practice a little then the next generation wud practice more n more n so on and so on. so even if ppl didnt really believe in Allah swt and his messanger, they wud still end up having kids that wud be muslim.

U need a gud chat with shaykh khalid yasin. Ive got this brilliant video of this brother who was hindu and became muslim n hes telling his reversion story, its wikid, i think if a sikh watched it, it wud also be of benefit ----
Reply

jsc
05-19-2006, 11:26 AM
forced conversions have and do happen. people have been forced to denounce their faith. people have been forced to wear hijabs / jalbabs / nikkabs /burka's against their will. people have been kidnappeed and forced to live in islamic countries and to live by their ways.

if your forced into another's strict islamic family, how can u continue with your own faith?.... whilst wearing a burka... which may be against your beliefs...


2 mistakes in my previous post... was ment to be :
the only option in these days was death OR islam.... and

Guru Tegh Bahadur died not for his faith, but in protection of the Hindu faith (a faith which Guru Ji Himself did not believe in)...
We firmly believe in freedom of faith and freedom of belief and the brotherhood of all mankind.
Reply

Mohsin
05-19-2006, 11:50 AM
Originally Posted by jsc
islam was (and is) primaliry a peace loving religion.
but it is a fact that rulers ahve used the sword (and other means) to persuade on-muslims to convert.
Just to name afew well knows examples:
Sri guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib Ji was beheadded for his steadfast beleaf..
Bhai Mati Das Sahib was swordes in half starting from his head for not chaning hjis belief
Bhai Sati Das Sahib was wrapped in cotton and burnt alive
and Bhai Dyala Das Sahib was beaten and boiled alive.
The 2 youngest martyres in history were the 2 brave sons of Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji who were walled alive for their steadfast in Sikhism. Emperor Aurungzeb offred the young boys many riches on the condiditon of their conversion. The children (after being tought by their grandmother) remained steadfast in their faith thus becoming the youngest martyrs ever in history.

the only option in these days was death ot islam.

Hundreds of thousands of incidents like these have taken place in India at the hands of mughal rulkers.

im not saying all muslims are tyrants, and im not saying every1 who converted did it out of fear, but yes forced conversions did happen, had have been happeningrecentry in the uk aswell (and probably in other aprts of the world aswell).
Well said bro. I agree iwth what you've said. i knwo the Moghuls tried to convert people by force. But Islam was around well before the Moghuls came into power (correct me if i'm wrong) and its continued to convert after the loss of their rule.

By the way what forced conversions have been happening in the UK, i find that hard to believe that is unlilkely to have happened
Reply

Khoza
05-19-2006, 12:00 PM
Originally Posted by Moss
Well said bro. I agree iwth what you've said. i knwo the Moghuls tried to convert people by force. But Islam was around well before the Moghuls came into power (correct me if i'm wrong) and its continued to convert after the loss of their rule.
Now what you have just said is 100% coherant with historical facts and yes i do know people in some parts of India many Hindus still convert to Islam.

Ps: there have been numerous cases especially in the 90's of forced conversion in the UK to Islam
Reply

Mohsin
05-19-2006, 12:04 PM
Originally Posted by Khoza
Now what you have just said is 100% coherant with historical facts and yes i do know people in some parts of India many Hindus still convert to Islam.
Thankyou for agreeing. Shame Dhillon can't be more like you JSC and JSS. He denies any peaceful reversions

Ps: there have been numerous cases especially in the 90's of forced conversion in the UK to Islam
Like i said before, thats hard to believe. In britains they would never allow something like that to happen.
Reply

sonz
05-19-2006, 12:24 PM
Originally Posted by ISDhillon
is this logical? lol you now want me to logically conclude that isalm may have been spread in some places (even though i dont believe that either) peacefully then it must have done the same in india, the problem is we have shown through an abundance of proof that it wasnt and even god could no longer bear the tyranny so started another religion, the proof is so stark but you keep brininging in other issues you better make sure you never call me illogical again;D
what ru talking about. u dont even the history of ur own country

chk this out

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru (India's Prime Minsiter 1947-64) in ‘The Discovery of India,’ 1946, p. 218, 225.
“The impact of the invaders from the north-west and of Islam on India had been considerable. It had pointed out and shone up the abuses that had crept into Hindu society - the petrification of caste, untouchability, exclusiveness carried to fantastic lengths. The idea of the brotherhood of Islam and the theoretical equality of its adherents made a powerful appeal especially to those in the Hindu fold who were denied any semblance of equal treatment.” “...his (Babar’s) account tells us of the cultural poverty that had descended on North India. Partly this was due to Timur's destruction, partly due to the exodus of many learned men and artists and noted craftsmen to the South. But this was due also to the drying up of the creative genius of the Indian people.”
“The coming of Islam and of a considerable number of people from outside with different ways of living and thought affected these beliefs and structure. A foreign conquest, with all its evils, has one advantage: it widens the mental horizon of the people and compels them to look out of their shells. They realize that the world is a much bigger and a more variegated place than they had imagined. So the Afghan conquest had affected India and many changes had taken place. Even more so the Moghals, who were far more cultured and advanced in the ways of living than the Afghans, brought changes to India. In particular, they introduced the refinements for which Iran was famous.”
Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, Presidential Address to the Fifty-fifth Session of the Indian Congress, Jaipur, 1948.

“(The Muslims had) enriched our culture, strengthened our administration, and brought near distant parts of the country... It (the Muslim Period) touched deeply the social life and the literature of the land.”
Humayun Kabir in 'The Indian Heritage,' 1955, p. 153.

“Islam's democratic challenge has perhaps never been equaled by any other religious or social system. Its advent on the Indian scene was marked by a profound stirring of consciousness. It modified the basis of Hindu social structure throughout northern India.”
N.S. Mehta, in 'Islam and the Indian Civilization,' reproduced in 'Hindustan ke Ahd-i-Wusta ki ek Jhalak,' by S.A. Rahman.
“Islam had brought to India a luminous torch which rescued humanity from darkness at a time when old civilizations were on the decline and lofty moral ideals had got reduced to empty intellectual concepts. As in other lands, so in India too, the conquests of Islam were more widespread in the world of thought than in the world of politics. Today, also, the Islamic World is a spiritual brotherhood which is held together by community of faith in the Oneness of God and human equality. Unfortunately, the history of Islam in this country remained tied up for centuries with that of government with the result that a veil was cast over its true spirit, and its fruits and blessings were hidden from the popular eye.”
Prof. K.M. Panikkar in 'A Survey of Indian History,' 1947, p. 163.
“One thing is clear. Islam had a profound effect on Hinduism during this period. Medieval theism is in some ways a reply to the attack of Islam; and the doctrine of medieval teachers by whatever names their gods are known are essentially theistic. It is the one supreme God that is the object of the devotee's adoration and it is to His grace that we are asked to look for redemption.”
Zaheeruddin Babar in his Autobiography 'Tuzuk-i-Babari,' (Founder of Mughal Dynasty, Ruled India 1526-1530).

“There are neither good horses in India, nor good meat, nor grapes, nor melons, nor ice, nor cold water, nor baths, nor candle, nor candlestick, nor torch. In the place of the candle, they use the divat. It rests on three legs: a small iron piece resembling the snout of a lamp... Even in case of Rajas and Maharajas, the attendants stand holding the clumsy divat in their hands when they are in need of a light in the night. “There is no arrangement for running water in gardens and buildings. The buildings lack beauty, symmetry, ventilation and neatness. Commonly, the people walk barefooted with a narrow slip tied round the loins. Women wear a dress ...”
Dr. Gustav le Bon in 'Les Civilisations de L'Inde' (translated by S.A. Bilgrami).
"There does not exist a history of ancient India. Their books contain no historical data whatever, except for a few religious books in which historical information is buried under a heap of parables and folk-lore, and their buildings and other monuments also do nothing to fill the void for the oldest among them do not go beyond the third century B.C. To discover facts about India of the ancient times is as difficult a task as the discovery of the island of Atlantis, which, according to Plato, was destroyed due to the changes of the earth... The historical phase of India began with the Muslim invasion. Muslims were India's first historians."
Sir William Digby in 'Prosperous India: A Revelation,' p. 30.

"England's industrial supremacy owes its origin to the vast hoards of Bengal and the Karnatik being made available for her use....Before Plassey was fought and won, and before the stream of treasure began to flow to England, the industries of our country were at a very low ebb."
Brooks Adams in 'The Law of Civilization and Decay,' London, 1898, pp. 313-17.

"Very soon after Plassey the Bengal plunder began to arrive in London, and the effect appears to have been instantaneous, for all authorities agree that the Industrial Revolution, the event that has divided the l9th century from all antecedent time, began with the year 1760....Plassey was fought in 1757, and probably nothing has ever equaled the rapidity of the change which followed....In themselves inventions are passive, many of the most important having laid dormant for centuries, waiting for a sufficient store of force to have accumulated to have set them working. That store must always take the shape of money, and money not hoarded, but in motion. "...Before the influx of the Indian treasure, and the expansion of credit which followed, no force sufficient for this purpose existed....The factory system was the child of 'Industrial Revolution,' and until capital had accumulated in masses, capable of giving solidity to large bodies of labour, manufactures were carried on by scattered individuals....Possibly since the world began, no investment has ever yielded the profit reaped from the Indian plunder, because for nearly fifty years Great Britain stood without a competitor."
Muslims in India - An Overview

The Muslims entered Sind, India, in 711 C.E., the same year they entered Spain. Their entry in India was prompted by an attempt to free the civilian Muslim hostages whose ship was taken by sea pirates in the territory of Raja Dahir, King of Sind. After diplomatic attempts failed, Hajjaj bin Yusuf, the Umayyad governor in Baghdad, dispatched a 17-year-old commander by the name Muhammad bin Qasim with a small army. Muhammad bin Qasim defeated Raja Dahir at what is now Hyderabad in Pakistan. In pursuing the remnant of Dahir's army and his son’s supporters (Indian kings), Muhammad bin Qasim fought at Nirun, Rawar, Bahrore, Brahmanabad, Aror, Dipalpur and Multan. By 713 C.E., he established his control in Sind and parts of Punjab up to the borders of Kashmir. A major part of what is now Pakistan came under Muslim control in 713 C.E. and remained so throughout the centuries until some years after the fall of the Mughal Empire in 1857. Muhammad bin Qasim’s treatment of the Indian population was so just that when he was called back to Baghdad the civilians were greatly disheartened and gave him farewell in tears. There was a Muslim community in Malabar, southwest India as early as 618 C.E. as a result of King Chakrawati Farmas accepting Islam at the hands of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The Muslim presence as rulers in India dates from 711 C.E. Since then, different Muslim rulers (Turks of Central Asia, Afghans, and the descendants of the Mongol - the Mughals) entered India, primarily fought their fellow Muslim rulers, and established their rule under various dynastic names. By the eleventh century, the Muslims had established their capital at Delhi, which remained the principal seat of power until the last ruler of Mughal Dynasty, Bahadur Shah Zafar, was deposed in 1857 by the British. A few British visitors were given permission by Akbar to stay in Eastern India more than two centuries before. The British abused that privilege, and within a few decades the British began to collaborate with Rajas and Nawabs in military expeditions against the Mughals and Muslim rulers of the east, southeast and south India. After two centuries of fighting, the British succeeded in abolishing the Mughal rule in 1857.
Muslims were a minority when they ruled major parts of India for nearly a thousand years. They were well liked generally as rulers for their justice, social and cultural values, respect for freedom to practice religion as prescribed by the religion of various communities, freedom of speech, legal system in accordance with the dictates and established norms of each religious community, public works and for establishing educational institutions. In their days as rulers, the Muslims constituted about twenty percent of India's population. Today, Indian Muslims constitute about fifteen percent of India's population, about 150 million, and they are the second largest Muslim community in the world.
The region now part of Pakistan and many other parts of India were predominantly Muslim. After the British takeover in 1857, many of these areas remained under loose control of Muslims. When the British decided to withdraw from India without a clear direction for the future of Muslims (former rulers), a political solution was reached for some of the Muslim majority areas. This resulted in the division of India and the creation of Pakistan in 1947.
Among the famous Muslims scientists, historians and travelers who visited and lived, though briefly, in India were Al-Biruni, Al-Masu'di, and Ibn Battuta. Their writings illuminate us with the Indian society and culture. Al-Biruni stayed in India for twenty years. Ibn Battuta, an Andalusian who was born in Morocco, served as a Magistrate of Delhi (1334-1341) during the reign of Sultan Muhammad Tughluk. It is conceivable that Ibn Battuta’s description of Muslim India inspired Ferdinand and Isabella who had taken over the last Muslim kingdom of Granada, Spain in 1492. That same year Columbus received the permission in the Alhambra palace (of Granada) and made his famous voyage bound for India in search of gold and spice but he landed in the Americas.

http://www.load-islam.com/C/History/...tion_in_India/
Reply

sonz
05-19-2006, 12:44 PM
[QUOTE=ISDhillon;317889]

written by a muslim, why dont you first refute my references there plenty for you to dwell over and did you actually read your own article it shows only a few good things but majority is bad as always thats why all the lands you ever conquered kicked you out like spain lol
written by a muslim? these are quotes of books and statements from famous non-muslim individuals. where is the part that its written by a muslim.

ur in denial and a warmonger
Reply

jss
05-19-2006, 01:29 PM
Originally Posted by Ayesha Rana
true dont bring it up again.

People cannot be forced to follow Islam if they did not believe in it from their hearts.:rollseyes You can't be a Muslim if you don't truly believe so there wouldn't have been any point in supposedly making someone into a Muslim. It just does'nt work that way.
I respect your point but not everyone is like minded. The policies of some intolerent rulars did result in mass conversions of Hindus by force and by crippling taxes on non-Muslims. Aurangzeb went about demolishing Hindu temples and forcing people to convert by the sword, the result of which many did.

A moderator on here pointed out some quotes. It would be a lie on my behalf to suggest that all Muslims were intolerent. In India the caste system was deeply embedded in medieval Indian Hindu society. The arrival of Muslims on the scene did add to the cultural richness of the region and culturally there were some changes and the cultural virtues of Islam and Hinduism were combined.
Furthermore not all Mughul rulars were mean. For instance Emperor Akbar was deeply secular and tolerent of non-Muslims. He was also close to Guru Arjan Dev Ji Maharaj. However Akbars son Jehangir was a different story altogether.
To cut it short the Muslim arrival did have with it disadvantages and advantages but the mass forced conversions did happen.
Before I said that no one should blindly believe this detail but do the research for themselves.

peace
Reply

Noora_z3
05-21-2006, 09:30 AM
Originally Posted by ISDhillon
there are many sikhs who were focfully converted to islam during partition and their children have been brainwashed about their infidel past.
ISDhillon

ps remember this was not supposed to turn into a debate about conversions.
U said that happned during partition? who was ruling India at that time? and who forced them to convert?
Reply

bint_muhammed
05-21-2006, 02:18 PM
look people are worried that islam is the fastst growing religion and now are making false accustaion that it was spread by sword. GET OVER IT ISLAM WAS SPREAD BY ALLAHS RAHMAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply

Skillganon
05-21-2006, 02:56 PM
Originally Posted by jsc
had have been happeningrecentry in the uk aswell (and probably in other aprts of the world aswell).
In the UK? Bah I must be living in MARS!!
Reply

bint_muhammed
05-21-2006, 08:25 PM
Look Yeah Explain One Thing To Me As Islam Is The Fastes Growing Religion In The World, Who Is Spreading Force On Them Now! U Guys Are Twisted Wonder What You Parents Have Been Saying To You. If The Indian Muslim Ancestors Whad Converted By Force, Why Is The Religion So Strong Amongst Their Generation! You Cant Just Practice A Religion If You Dont Believe In It And Pass It Down! Unless You Guys Do??
Reply

Skillganon
05-21-2006, 08:35 PM
Originally Posted by ya_Giney
Look Yeah Explain One Thing To Me As Islam Is The Fastes Growing Religion In The World, Who Is Spreading Force On Them Now! U Guys Are Twisted Wonder What You Parents Have Been Saying To You. If The Indian Muslim Ancestors Whad Converted By Force, Why Is The Religion So Strong Amongst Their Generation! You Cant Just Practice A Religion If You Dont Believe In It And Pass It Down! Unless You Guys Do??
You can say I am from an indian descent, although this is not the case since borders keep shifting and new lands being named. You can say my some of my recent ancestors may have been idol worshippers, but this is not recorded, and thank Allah(s.w.t) I was born one, maybe I would of have found ISLAM oneday, knowing myself to question everything a bit. Anyway their is no record of force in my recent ancestors conversion (as their is no record whatsoever) than I can equally conclude ISLAM did not spread by force to my recent ancestors.
Reply

bint_muhammed
05-26-2006, 05:49 PM
Originally Posted by Skillganon
You can say I am from an indian descent, although this is not the case since borders keep shifting and new lands being named. You can say my some of my recent ancestors may have been idol worshippers, but this is not recorded, and thank Allah(s.w.t) I was born one, maybe I would of have found ISLAM oneday, knowing myself to question everything a bit. Anyway their is no record of force in my recent ancestors conversion (as their is no record whatsoever) than I can equally conclude ISLAM did not spread by force to my recent ancestors.
exactly!:happy:
Reply

ISDhillon
05-26-2006, 06:01 PM
:okay:
Originally Posted by Noora_z3
U said that happned during partition? who was ruling India at that time? and who forced them to convert?

during partition there was no rule of law and yes muslims were converting by force you can read many of these stories in the daily tribune. Its ok because we killed all the muslims in punjab also, so were even steven:)

However I am proud to be a direct descendent of those brave sikhs who not only killed the jihad movement against us but also sent back all the invaders to arabia where they came from, looking back who prospered? we did without a doubt such tyrants were two-a-penny rulers who had their heydey but nobody will even spit on their graves yet we flourished and came into our own even though the odds were against us.

No offence to islam though:okay:

ISDhillon
Reply

ISDhillon
05-26-2006, 06:06 PM
Originally Posted by Skillganon
In the UK? Bah I must be living in MARS!!

or perhaps uranus:statisfie
Reply

sonz
05-26-2006, 07:51 PM
Originally Posted by ISDhillon
:okay:


during partition there was no rule of law and yes muslims were converting by force you can read many of these stories in the daily tribune. Its ok because we killed all the muslims in punjab also, so were even steven:)

However I am proud to be a direct descendent of those brave sikhs who not only killed the jihad movement against us but also sent back all the invaders to arabia where they came from, looking back who prospered? we did without a doubt such tyrants were two-a-penny rulers who had their heydey but nobody will even spit on their graves yet we flourished and came into our own even though the odds were against us.

No offence to islam though:okay:

ISDhillon
lol

why dont u give us "stories" where muslimz were forced to "convert"

i will let the facts speak and not some sikh propaganda

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru (India's Prime Minsiter 1947-64) in ‘The Discovery of India,’ 1946, p. 218, 225.
“The impact of the invaders from the north-west and of Islam on India had been considerable. It had pointed out and shone up the abuses that had crept into Hindu society - the petrification of caste, untouchability, exclusiveness carried to fantastic lengths. The idea of the brotherhood of Islam and the theoretical equality of its adherents made a powerful appeal especially to those in the Hindu fold who were denied any semblance of equal treatment.” “...his (Babar’s) account tells us of the cultural poverty that had descended on North India. Partly this was due to Timur's destruction, partly due to the exodus of many learned men and artists and noted craftsmen to the South. But this was due also to the drying up of the creative genius of the Indian people.”
“The coming of Islam and of a considerable number of people from outside with different ways of living and thought affected these beliefs and structure. A foreign conquest, with all its evils, has one advantage: it widens the mental horizon of the people and compels them to look out of their shells. They realize that the world is a much bigger and a more variegated place than they had imagined. So the Afghan conquest had affected India and many changes had taken place. Even more so the Moghals, who were far more cultured and advanced in the ways of living than the Afghans, brought changes to India. In particular, they introduced the refinements for which Iran was famous.”
Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, Presidential Address to the Fifty-fifth Session of the Indian Congress, Jaipur, 1948.
“(The Muslims had) enriched our culture, strengthened our administration, and brought near distant parts of the country... It (the Muslim Period) touched deeply the social life and the literature of the land.”
Humayun Kabir in 'The Indian Heritage,' 1955, p. 153.
“Islam's democratic challenge has perhaps never been equaled by any other religious or social system. Its advent on the Indian scene was marked by a profound stirring of consciousness. It modified the basis of Hindu social structure throughout northern India.”
N.S. Mehta, in 'Islam and the Indian Civilization,' reproduced in 'Hindustan ke Ahd-i-Wusta ki ek Jhalak,' by S.A. Rahman.
“Islam had brought to India a luminous torch which rescued humanity from darkness at a time when old civilizations were on the decline and lofty moral ideals had got reduced to empty intellectual concepts. As in other lands, so in India too, the conquests of Islam were more widespread in the world of thought than in the world of politics. Today, also, the Islamic World is a spiritual brotherhood which is held together by community of faith in the Oneness of God and human equality. Unfortunately, the history of Islam in this country remained tied up for centuries with that of government with the result that a veil was cast over its true spirit, and its fruits and blessings were hidden from the popular eye.”
Prof. K.M. Panikkar in 'A Survey of Indian History,' 1947, p. 163.
“One thing is clear. Islam had a profound effect on Hinduism during this period. Medieval theism is in some ways a reply to the attack of Islam; and the doctrine of medieval teachers by whatever names their gods are known are essentially theistic. It is the one supreme God that is the object of the devotee's adoration and it is to His grace that we are asked to look for redemption.”
Zaheeruddin Babar in his Autobiography 'Tuzuk-i-Babari,' (Founder of Mughal Dynasty, Ruled India 1526-1530).
“There are neither good horses in India, nor good meat, nor grapes, nor melons, nor ice, nor cold water, nor baths, nor candle, nor candlestick, nor torch. In the place of the candle, they use the divat. It rests on three legs: a small iron piece resembling the snout of a lamp... Even in case of Rajas and Maharajas, the attendants stand holding the clumsy divat in their hands when they are in need of a light in the night. “There is no arrangement for running water in gardens and buildings. The buildings lack beauty, symmetry, ventilation and neatness. Commonly, the people walk barefooted with a narrow slip tied round the loins. Women wear a dress ...”
Dr. Gustav le Bon in 'Les Civilisations de L'Inde' (translated by S.A. Bilgrami).
"There does not exist a history of ancient India. Their books contain no historical data whatever, except for a few religious books in which historical information is buried under a heap of parables and folk-lore, and their buildings and other monuments also do nothing to fill the void for the oldest among them do not go beyond the third century B.C. To discover facts about India of the ancient times is as difficult a task as the discovery of the island of Atlantis, which, according to Plato, was destroyed due to the changes of the earth... The historical phase of India began with the Muslim invasion. Muslims were India's first historians."
Sir William Digby in 'Prosperous India: A Revelation,' p. 30.
"England's industrial supremacy owes its origin to the vast hoards of Bengal and the Karnatik being made available for her use....Before Plassey was fought and won, and before the stream of treasure began to flow to England, the industries of our country were at a very low ebb."
Brooks Adams in 'The Law of Civilization and Decay,' London, 1898, pp. 313-17.
"Very soon after Plassey the Bengal plunder began to arrive in London, and the effect appears to have been instantaneous, for all authorities agree that the Industrial Revolution, the event that has divided the l9th century from all antecedent time, began with the year 1760....Plassey was fought in 1757, and probably nothing has ever equaled the rapidity of the change which followed....In themselves inventions are passive, many of the most important having laid dormant for centuries, waiting for a sufficient store of force to have accumulated to have set them working. That store must always take the shape of money, and money not hoarded, but in motion. "...Before the influx of the Indian treasure, and the expansion of credit which followed, no force sufficient for this purpose existed....The factory system was the child of 'Industrial Revolution,' and until capital had accumulated in masses, capable of giving solidity to large bodies of labour, manufactures were carried on by scattered individuals....Possibly since the world began, no investment has ever yielded the profit reaped from the Indian plunder, because for nearly fifty years Great Britain stood without a competitor."
Muslims in India - An Overview
The Muslims entered Sind, India, in 711 C.E., the same year they entered Spain. Their entry in India was prompted by an attempt to free the civilian Muslim hostages whose ship was taken by sea pirates in the territory of Raja Dahir, King of Sind. After diplomatic attempts failed, Hajjaj bin Yusuf, the Umayyad governor in Baghdad, dispatched a 17-year-old commander by the name Muhammad bin Qasim with a small army. Muhammad bin Qasim defeated Raja Dahir at what is now Hyderabad in Pakistan. In pursuing the remnant of Dahir's army and his son’s supporters (Indian kings), Muhammad bin Qasim fought at Nirun, Rawar, Bahrore, Brahmanabad, Aror, Dipalpur and Multan. By 713 C.E., he established his control in Sind and parts of Punjab up to the borders of Kashmir. A major part of what is now Pakistan came under Muslim control in 713 C.E. and remained so throughout the centuries until some years after the fall of the Mughal Empire in 1857. Muhammad bin Qasim’s treatment of the Indian population was so just that when he was called back to Baghdad the civilians were greatly disheartened and gave him farewell in tears. There was a Muslim community in Malabar, southwest India as early as 618 C.E. as a result of King Chakrawati Farmas accepting Islam at the hands of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The Muslim presence as rulers in India dates from 711 C.E. Since then, different Muslim rulers (Turks of Central Asia, Afghans, and the descendants of the Mongol - the Mughals) entered India, primarily fought their fellow Muslim rulers, and established their rule under various dynastic names. By the eleventh century, the Muslims had established their capital at Delhi, which remained the principal seat of power until the last ruler of Mughal Dynasty, Bahadur Shah Zafar, was deposed in 1857 by the British. A few British visitors were given permission by Akbar to stay in Eastern India more than two centuries before. The British abused that privilege, and within a few decades the British began to collaborate with Rajas and Nawabs in military expeditions against the Mughals and Muslim rulers of the east, southeast and south India. After two centuries of fighting, the British succeeded in abolishing the Mughal rule in 1857.
Muslims were a minority when they ruled major parts of India for nearly a thousand years. They were well liked generally as rulers for their justice, social and cultural values, respect for freedom to practice religion as prescribed by the religion of various communities, freedom of speech, legal system in accordance with the dictates and established norms of each religious community, public works and for establishing educational institutions. In their days as rulers, the Muslims constituted about twenty percent of India's population. Today, Indian Muslims constitute about fifteen percent of India's population, about 150 million, and they are the second largest Muslim community in the world.
The region now part of Pakistan and many other parts of India were predominantly Muslim. After the British takeover in 1857, many of these areas remained under loose control of Muslims. When the British decided to withdraw from India without a clear direction for the future of Muslims (former rulers), a political solution was reached for some of the Muslim majority areas. This resulted in the division of India and the creation of Pakistan in 1947.
Among the famous Muslims scientists, historians and travelers who visited and lived, though briefly, in India were Al-Biruni, Al-Masu'di, and Ibn Battuta. Their writings illuminate us with the Indian society and culture. Al-Biruni stayed in India for twenty years. Ibn Battuta, an Andalusian who was born in Morocco, served as a Magistrate of Delhi (1334-1341) during the reign of Sultan Muhammad Tughluk. It is conceivable that Ibn Battuta’s description of Muslim India inspired Ferdinand and Isabella who had taken over the last Muslim kingdom of Granada, Spain in 1492. That same year Columbus received the permission in the Alhambra palace (of Granada) and made his famous voyage bound for India in search of gold and spice but he landed in the Americas.
http://www.load-islam.com/C/History/...tion_in_India/
Reply

ISDhillon
05-26-2006, 08:22 PM
Dear oh dear sonz:heated:


This is a problem i see alot on this forum, I think the saddest thing about cutting and pasting quotes which seem to on the surface support your argument, is that when you look at the quotes in detail they actually prove nothing look sonz and learn,



Dr. Gustav le Bon in 'Les Civilisations de L'Inde' (translated by S.A. Bilgrami).
“The historical phase of India began with the Muslim invasion. Muslims were India's first historians."
So muslims invaded and they committed a helluva a lot of atrocities its no propaganda even god In his mercy created a new religion and boy did we put you in your place don’t be jealous it’s a very unattractive quality.

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru (India's Prime Minsiter 1947-64) in ‘The Discovery of India,’ 1946, p. 218, 225.
“The impact of the invaders from the north-west and of Islam on India had been considerable
And one of my favourites:

A foreign conquest, with all its evils,”
See again the word invaders and evil I couldn’t care less about their contribution to India its of no use to me whatsoever, I never go to the taj mahal because to me it’s a whores grave that’s about all the moghuls did for India, and you think this supports your argument? Which side are you on it is clear you have not read your own quotes I do hope you will look at the references I provided earlier it seems they may have been deleted, but of course they were anti-islamic lol,


“Zaheeruddin Babar in his Autobiography 'Tuzuk-i-Babari,' (Founder of Mughal Dynasty, Ruled India 1526-1530).
“There are neither good horses in India, nor good meat, nor grapes, nor melons, nor ice, nor cold water, nor baths, nor candle, nor candlestick, nor torch. In the place of the candle, they use the divat. It rests on three legs: a small iron piece resembling the snout of a lamp... Even in case of Rajas and Maharajas, the attendants stand holding the clumsy divat in their hands when they are in need of a light in the night. “There is no arrangement for running water in gardens and buildings. The buildings lack beauty, symmetry, ventilation and neatness. Commonly, the people walk barefooted with a narrow slip tied round the loins. Women wear a dress ...””
wow you’ve got a nerve you posted the writings of the tyrant is this impartial?, what does guru granth sahib ji say about this beast:

ਤਿਲੰਗ ਮਹਲਾ ੧ ॥
तिलंग महला १ ॥
tilang mehlaa 1.
Tilang, First Mehl:
ਜੈਸੀ ਮੈ ਆਵੈ ਖਸਮ ਕੀ ਬਾਣੀ ਤੈਸੜਾ ਕਰੀ ਗਿਆਨੁ ਵੇ ਲਾਲੋ ॥
जैसी मै आवै खसम की बाणी तैसड़ा करी गिआनु वे लालो ॥
jaisee mai aavai khasam kee banee taisrhaa karee gi-aan vay laalo.
As the Word of the Forgiving Lord comes to me, so do I express it, O Lalo.
ਪਾਪ ਕੀ ਜੰਞ ਲੈ ਕਾਬਲਹੁ ਧਾਇਆ ਜੋਰੀ ਮੰਗੈ ਦਾਨੁ ਵੇ ਲਾਲੋ ॥
पाप की जंञ लै काबलहु धाइआ जोरी मंगै दानु वे लालो ॥
paap kee janj lai kaablahu Dhaa-i-aa joree mangai daan vay laalo.
Bringing the marriage party of sin, Babar has invaded from Kaabul, demanding our land as his wedding gift, O Lalo.
ਸਰਮੁ ਧਰਮੁ ਦੁਇ ਛਪਿ ਖਲੋਏ ਕੂੜੁ ਫਿਰੈ ਪਰਧਾਨੁ ਵੇ ਲਾਲੋ ॥
सरमु धरमु दुइ छपि खलोए कूड़ु फिरै परधानु वे लालो ॥
saram Dharam du-ay chhap khalo-ay koorh firai parDhaan vay laalo.
Modesty and righteousness both have vanished, and falsehood struts around like a leader, O Lalo.
ਕਾਜੀਆ ਬਾਮਣਾ ਕੀ ਗਲ ਥਕੀ ਅਗਦੁ ਪੜੈ ਸੈਤਾਨੁ ਵੇ ਲਾਲੋ ॥
काजीआ बामणा की गल थकी अगदु पड़ै सैतानु वे लालो ॥
kaajee-aa baamnaa kee gal thakee agad parhai saitaan vay laalo.
The Qazis and the Brahmins have lost their roles, and Satan now conducts the marriage rites, O Lalo.
ਮੁਸਲਮਾਨੀਆ ਪੜਹਿ ਕਤੇਬਾ ਕਸਟ ਮਹਿ ਕਰਹਿ ਖੁਦਾਇ ਵੇ ਲਾਲੋ ॥
मुसलमानीआ पड़हि कतेबा कसट महि करहि खुदाइ वे लालो ॥
musalmaanee-aa parheh kataybaa kasat meh karahi khudaa-ay vay laalo.
The Muslim women read the Koran, and in their misery, they call upon God, O Lalo.
ਜਾਤਿ ਸਨਾਤੀ ਹੋਰਿ ਹਿਦਵਾਣੀਆ ਏਹਿ ਭੀ ਲੇਖੈ ਲਾਇ ਵੇ ਲਾਲੋ ॥
जाति सनाती होरि हिदवाणीआ एहि भी लेखै लाइ वे लालो ॥
jaat sanaatee hor hidvaanee-aa ayhi bhee laykhai laa-ay vay laalo.
The Hindu women of high social status, and others of lowly status as well, are put into the same category, O Lalo.


ਖੂਨ ਕੇ ਸੋਹਿਲੇ ਗਾਵੀਅਹਿ ਨਾਨਕ ਰਤੁ ਕਾ ਕੁੰਗੂ ਪਾਇ ਵੇ ਲਾਲੋ ॥੧॥
खून के सोहिले गावीअहि नानक रतु का कुंगू पाइ वे लालो ॥१॥
khoon kay sohilay gavee-ah naanak rat kaa kungoo paa-ay vay laalo. ||1||
The wedding songs of murder are sung, O Nanak, and blood is sprinkled instead of saffron, O Lalo. ||1||
ਸਾਹਿਬ ਕੇ ਗੁਣ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਗਾਵੈ ਮਾਸ ਪੁਰੀ ਵਿਚਿ ਆਖੁ ਮਸੋਲਾ ॥
साहिब के गुण नानकु गावै मास पुरी विचि आखु मसोला ॥
saahib kay gun naanak gaavai maas puree vich aakh masolaa.
Nanak sings the Glorious Praises of the Lord and Master in the city of corpses, and voices this account.
ਜਿਨਿ ਉਪਾਈ ਰੰਗਿ ਰਵਾਈ ਬੈਠਾ ਵੇਖੈ ਵਖਿ ਇਕੇਲਾ ॥
जिनि उपाई रंगि रवाई बैठा वेखै वखि इकेला ॥
jin upaa-ee rang ravaa-ee baithaa vaykhai vakh ikaylaa.
The One who created, and attached the mortals to pleasures, sits alone, and watches this.
ਸਚਾ ਸੋ ਸਾਹਿਬੁ ਸਚੁ ਤਪਾਵਸੁ ਸਚੜਾ ਨਿਆਉ ਕਰੇਗੁ ਮਸੋਲਾ ॥
सचा सो साहिबु सचु तपावसु सचड़ा निआउ करेगु मसोला ॥
sachaa so saahib sach tapaavas sachrhaa ni-aa-o karayg masolaa.
The Lord and Master is True, and True is His justice. He issues His Commands according to His judgement.
ਕਾਇਆ ਕਪੜੁ ਟੁਕੁ ਟੁਕੁ ਹੋਸੀ ਹਿਦੁਸਤਾਨੁ ਸਮਾਲਸੀ ਬੋਲਾ ॥
काइआ कपड़ु टुकु टुकु होसी हिदुसतानु समालसी बोला ॥
kaa-i-aa kaparh tuk tuk hosee hindusataan samaalsee bolaa.
The body-fabric will be torn apart into shreds, and then India will remember these words.
ਆਵਨਿ ਅਠਤਰੈ ਜਾਨਿ ਸਤਾਨਵੈ ਹੋਰੁ ਭੀ ਉਠਸੀ ਮਰਦ ਕਾ ਚੇਲਾ ॥
आवनि अठतरै जानि सतानवै होरु भी उठसी मरद का चेला ॥
aavan ath-tarai jaan sataanvai hor bhee uthsee marad kaa chaylaa.
Coming in seventy-eight (1521 A.D.), they will depart in ninety-seven (1540 A.D.), and then another disciple of man will rise up.
ਸਚ ਕੀ ਬਾਣੀ ਨਾਨਕੁ ਆਖੈ ਸਚੁ ਸੁਣਾਇਸੀ ਸਚ ਕੀ ਬੇਲਾ ॥੨॥੩॥੫॥
सच की बाणी नानकु आखै सचु सुणाइसी सच की बेला ॥२॥३॥५॥
sach kee banee naanak aakhai sach sunaa-isee sach kee baylaa. ||2||3||5||
Nanak speaks the Word of Truth; he proclaims the Truth at this, the right time. ||2||3||5||



And what was the greatest kingdom on earth, even greater than America for its freedom and non-violence, a state which never used the death penalty, a state where all were rich and prosperous, a state where people were awarded with kingdoms and buckets full of diamonds and pearls, a kingdom where muslim and hindus enjoyed the top ranking positions in political affairs that’s right it was the sikh kingdom, which even ruled over Kabul and kandhar, a kingdom which had equality of sexes and religious tolerance for all, lets see whose is best:

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

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/200...trum/index.htm

http://www.asht.info/Sikh+Kingdoms

theres plenty more articles, their will never be a kingdom again like maharaja ranjit singhs this has been acknowledged just recently by the british parliament when I find the article I will post it here, mughal rule did add rich culture but it did a lot worse than good, but god as always was merciful.

In future try actually reading the title of this thread which was about islam being spread by the sword, your quotes do not refute that they actually call them invaders, conquests and evil.

ISDhillon:thankyou:
Reply

Noora_z3
05-26-2006, 09:31 PM
Originally Posted by ISDhillon
Dear oh dear sonz:heated:

See again the word invaders and evil I couldn’t care less about their contribution to India
Then how can u make a sound judgment?

its of no use to me whatsoever, I never go to the taj mahal because to me it’s a whores grave that’s about all the moghuls did for India.
U missed a lot.

And what was the greatest kingdom on earth, even greater than America for its freedom and non-violence,
U comparing it to American for cryin out loud...wrong choice.


a state which never used the death penalty, [Edit] lets see whose is best:

ISDhillon:thankyou:[/QUOTE]

There is no deny that the sikh empire did a good job, but let me just get this clear, r u comparing the sikh empire which lasted for like only 50 yrs n which was in control of Punjab, to a an empire that ruled the whole sub-continent includnig Afghanistan and Persia for more than 160 yrs?
Reply

ISDhillon
05-26-2006, 10:13 PM
[QUOTE]
Originally Posted by Noora_z3
Then how can u make a sound judgment?
because the title of this thread is about whether islam was spread by the sword or not, the contribution is another subject, anyone who invades does it by force i cant imagine they invaded with fluffy cushions.


U missed a lot.
okay fair enuff i know they widened roads and loads of other stuff, still dont know how this softens the invasion.


U comparing it to American for cryin out loud...wrong choice.
i have to say i have no problem with america, my only greif with america is its stance on capital punishment, i understand feelings are heightened against america cos of iraq war but personally i was never gainst it, it does not matter for me wether or not their was any wmd's i dont think these countries know how to live in peace, only in fear.



r u comparing the sikh empire which lasted for like only 50 yrs n which was in control of Punjab, to a an empire that ruled the whole sub-continent includnig Afghanistan and Persia for more than 160 yrs?
quality not quantity, and you know it does not matter what my parents did for me when i was growing up i still only remember the bad stuff they did to me, same with rulers i will always remember the bad stuff the mughals did and you will always remember the bad stuff america did

peace:)

ISDhillon
Reply

Noora_z3
05-26-2006, 10:34 PM
Originally Posted by ISDhillon;328993[QUOTE

because the title of this thread is about whether islam was spread by the sword or not, the contribution is another subject, anyone who invades does it by force i cant imagine they invaded with fluffy cushions.
Well, lets use urchoice of word, lets say muslims did invade India....the question is did they force conversion?, did they go arond n threatned non muslims? No that didnt happen.


okay fair enuff i know they widened roads and loads of other stuff, still dont know how this softens the invasion.
Sikhisim flourished during Akbar's ruling...u dont deny that, do u?


i
have to say i have no problem with america, my only greif with america is its stance on capital punishment, i understand feelings are heightened against america cos of iraq war but personally i was never gainst it, it does not matter for me wether or not their was any wmd's i dont think these countries know how to live in peace, only in fear.
This says lots bout u, an eye opener.


quality not quantity, and you know it does not matter what my parents did for me when i was growing up i still only remember the bad stuff they did to me, same with rulers i will always remember the bad stuff the mughals did and you will always remember the bad stuff america did
Well its not bout me or u remembering...its bout wat it is in HISTORY...true history..not political history.

By the way, who said I only remember the bad stuff america did...I do belive they contributed a lot to the world..but thats another thing, its just i dont consider them the perfect model for comparison.
Reply

ISDhillon
05-27-2006, 09:49 AM
Hey Nooran,:)


“the question is did they force conversion?, did they go arond n threatned non muslims? No that didnt happen.”
Yes they did so much so that the death penalty for apostazing muslims who were forcefully converted was revoked because the people never accepted islam, have a look:,

http://www.san.beck.org/2-9-MughalEmpire1526-1707.html
“The prohibition against repairing or building new temples was revoked as was the death penalty for apostatizing Muslims, who had been forcibly converted.”

It happens today aswell:
http://web.mid-day.com/news/world/20...ber/123248.htm

How are you gonna disagree with the martyrdom of my 9th guru who sacrificed his life to prevent the forceful conversion of all the Hindus in Kashmir:

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php?t...u_Tegh_Bahadar

in fact we have plenty of evidence in scripture aswell as janamsakhis that forced conversions did go on,:

http://www.sridasam.org/dasam?Action...lish=t&id=5487

ਹਰੀਕ੍ਰਿਸਨ ਤਿਨ ਕੇ ਸੁਤ ਵਏ ॥ ਤਿਨ ਤੇ ਤੇਗ ਬਹਾਦਰ ਭਏ ॥੧੨॥
हरीक्रिसन तिन के सुत वए ॥ तिन ते तेग बहादर भए ॥१२॥
Har Krishan (the next Guru) was his son; after him, Tegh Bahadur became the Guru.12.

ਤਿਲਕ ਜੰਵੂ ਰਾਖਾ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਤਾ ਕਾ ॥ ਕੀਨੋ ਬਡੋ ਕਲੂ ਮਹਿ ਸਾਕਾ ॥
तिलक जंवू राखा प्रभ ता का ॥ कीनो बडो कलू महि साका ॥
He protected the forehead mark and sacred thread (of the Hindus) which marked a great event in the Iron age.

ਸਾਧਨ ਹੇਤਿ ਇਤੀ ਜਿਨਿ ਕਰੀ ॥ ਸੀਸੁ ਦੀਆ ਪਰ ਸੀ ਨ ਉਚਰੀ ॥੧੩॥
साधन हेति इती जिनि करी ॥ सीसु दीआ पर सी न उचरी ॥१३॥
For the sake of saints, he laid down his head without even a sign.13.

ਧਰਮ ਹੇਤਿ ਸਾਕਾ ਜਿਨਿ ਕੀਆ ॥ ਸੀਸੁ ਦੀਆ ਪਰ ਸਿਰਰੁ ਨ ਦੀਆ ॥
धरम हेति साका जिनि कीआ ॥ सीसु दीआ पर सिररु न दीआ ॥
For the sake of Dharma, he sacrificed himself. He laid down his head but not his creed.

ਨਾਟਕ ਚੇਟਕ ਕੀਏ ਕੁਕਾਜਾ ॥ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਲੋਗਨ ਕਹ ਆਵਤ ਲਾਜਾ ॥੧੪॥
नाटक चेटक कीए कुकाजा ॥ प्रभ लोगन कह आवत लाजा ॥१४॥
The saints of the Lord abhor the performance of miracles and malpractices. 14.

ਦੋਹਰਾ ॥
दोहरा ॥
DOHRA

ਠੀਕਰਿ ਫੋਰਿ ਦਿਲੀਸਿ ਸਿਰਿ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਕੀਯਾ ਪਯਾਨ ॥
ठीकरि फोरि दिलीसि सिरि प्रभ कीया पयान ॥
Breaking the potsherd of his body head of the king of Delhi (Aurangzeb), He left for the abode of the Lord.

ਤੇਗ ਬਹਾਦਰ ਸੀ ਕ੍ਰਿਆ ਕਰੀ ਨ ਕਿਨਹੂੰ ਆਨ ॥੧੫॥
तेग बहादर सी क्रिआ करी न किनहूं आन ॥१५॥
None could perform such a feat as that of Tegh Bahadur.15.

ਤੇਗ ਬਹਾਦਰ ਕੇ ਚਲਤ ਭਯੋ ਜਗਤ ਕੋ ਸੋਕ ॥
तेग बहादर के चलत भयो जगत को सोक ॥
The whole world bemoaned the departure of Tegh Bahadur.

ਹੈ ਹੈ ਹੈ ਸਭ ਜਗ ਭਯੋ ਜੈ ਜੈ ਜੈ ਸੁਰ ਲੋਕ ॥੧੬॥
है है है सभ जग भयो जै जै जै सुर लोक ॥१६॥
Whit the world Iamented, the gods hailed his arrival in heavens.16.




only a Muslim would deny that this did not happen, that’s ok cos we continue to document and provide symposiums on the world platform and so far I believe the world accepts our historical narration if they don’t then please show where.
“Sikhisim flourished during Akbar's ruling...u dont deny that, do u?”
yes however this was a very different type of ruler he was hardly a muslim by the current definition and anyways still don’t know how this softens the invasion.


“This says lots bout u, an eye opener.”
I wont be losing any sleep.


“Well its not bout me or u remembering...its bout wat it is in HISTORY...true history..not political history. “
the fact that Sikhism is a living testimony to the fact that islam was spread by the sword is more than enough history for any genuine seeker of the truth.

“By the way, who said I only remember the bad stuff america did...I do belive they contributed a lot to the world..but thats another thing, its just i dont consider them the perfect model for comparison.”
Why don’t you consider them perfect?

Don’t take offence but a religion holds the right to define its history and we will never accept such a view it would be like renouncing our religion, and funnily enough it is sikhism itself which shatters all the false illusuions of glorious mughal legacy that islamic scholars keep portraying . We do that without even trying gurbani speaks for itself its absolute truth.

ISDhillon:thankyou:
Reply

HeiGou
05-27-2006, 10:54 AM
Originally Posted by Noora_z3
Well, lets use urchoice of word, lets say muslims did invade India....the question is did they force conversion?, did they go arond n threatned non muslims? No that didnt happen.
Well actually it did. Read the Chachnama. Read any of the debates about Hinduism and whether it could be tolerated or not.

Sikhisim flourished during Akbar's ruling...u dont deny that, do u?
Akhbar being a bad Muslim widely condemned by the Ulama. Aurangzeb was more to their liking - how did he treat the Sikhs?
Reply

ISDhillon
05-27-2006, 12:23 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
Well actually it did. Read the Chachnama. Read any of the debates about Hinduism and whether it could be tolerated or not.



Akhbar being a bad Muslim widely condemned by the Ulama. Aurangzeb was more to their liking - how did he treat the Sikhs?

I actually wrote a poem about aurangzeb in punjabi:

----------
Reply

Noora_z3
05-27-2006, 01:50 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
Well actually it did. Read the Chachnama. Read any of the debates about Hinduism and whether it could be tolerated or not.
Elliot and Dowson write in their book, ‘History of India as Told by its Own Historians’ that the instructions of Hajjaj were strictly followed when he wrote to Qasim: ‘It appears that the chief inhabitants of Brahmanabad had petitioned to be allowed to repair the temple of Budh and pursue their religion. As they have made submission, and have agreed to pay taxes to the Khalifa, nothing more can properly be required from them. They have been taken under our protection, and we cannot in any way stretch out our hands upon their lives or property. Permission is given them to worship their gods. Nobody must be forbidden and prevented from following his own religion. They may live in their houses in whatever manner they like.’
Reply

KAding
05-27-2006, 08:56 PM
I am slightly confused by this thread. What is being debated exactly?

Surely that Muslims rulers conquered non-Muslim lands is an established fact, no?
The debate is about what happened to the subjects of the land they conquered, right?
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
05-30-2006, 11:28 AM
Originally Posted by root
At times YES!
Why was this done?
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
05-30-2006, 11:38 AM
Originally Posted by jsc
im not saying all muslims are tyrants, and im not saying every1 who converted did it out of fear, but yes forced conversions did happen, had have been happeningrecentry in the uk aswell (and probably in other aprts of the world aswell).

Don't forget the Christian Crusades!

Sikhism didn't believe in forcefull conversions, all those that converted were seekers of the truth.
Reply

avk
05-30-2006, 03:15 PM
Guys I wish It was this easy
According to the sheik of islam Q&a he says that muslims saying islam was not spread by the sword are deviant and he provides evidence check out what the brother said:from; http://63.175.194.25/index.php?QR=43087&ln=eng

"Praise be to Allaah.

We have already stated in question no. 34830 that jihad is of two types: taking the initiative in fighting and jihad in self-defence.

Undoubtedly taking the initiative in fighting has a great effect in spreading Islam and bringing people into the religion of Allaah in crowds. Hence the hearts of the enemies of Islam are filled with fear of jihad.

In the English-language Muslim World Magazine it says: There should be some kind of fear in the western world, one of the causes of which is that since the time it first appeared in Makkah, Islam has never decreased in numbers, rather it has always continued to increase and spread. Moreover Islam is not only a religion, rather one of its pillars is jihad.

Robert Bean says: The Muslims conquered the entire world before and they could do it again.

The Orientalists wanted to slander Islam by claiming that it was spread by the sword.

The orientalist Thomas Arnold wrote his book The Preaching of Islam with the aim of killing off the spirit of jihad among the Muslims and proving that Islam was not spread by the sword, rather that it spread by means of peaceful preaching, free from any use of force.

The Muslims fell into the trap that was set up for them. When they heard the orientalists’ accusations that Islam was spread by the sword, they said: You are mistaken, listen to a refutation from one of your own people, this Thomas says such and such.

The defeatists among the Muslims come out to defend Islam, and they want to disavow Islam of this so-called lie, so they deny that Islam was spread by the sword, and they say that jihad is not prescribed in Islam, except in the case of self-defence. There is no such thing in Islam as taking the initiative in fighting in their view. This goes against what the Muslim scholars have stated, let alone the fact that it goes against the Qur’aan and Sunnah.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said in Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 28/263.

The purpose is that all religion should be for Allaah alone, and that the word of Allaah should be supreme. The word of Allaah is a comprehensive phrase that refers to His words that are contained in His Book. Hence Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Indeed We have sent Our Messengers with clear proofs, and revealed with them the Scripture and the Balance (justice) that mankind may keep up justice”

[al-Hadeed 57:25]

The purpose behind sending the Messengers and revealing the Books was so that mankind might keep up justice with regard to the rights of Allaah and the rights of His creation. Then Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And We brought forth iron wherein is mighty power (in matters of war), as well as many benefits for mankind, that Allaah may test who it is that will help Him (His religion) and His Messengers in the unseen”

[al-Hadeed 27:25]

So whoever deviates from the Book is to be brought back with iron, i.e. by force. Hence the soundness of the religion is based on the Qur’aan and the Sword. It was narrated that Jaabir ibn ‘Abd-Allaah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) commanded us to strike with this, meaning the sword, whoever turns away from this, meaning the Qur’aan.

Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Faroosiyyah (p.18):

Allaah sent him – meaning the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) – with the guiding Book and the conquering sword, ahead of the Hour, so that Allaah alone would be worshipped with no partner or associate, and his provision was placed beneath the shade of his sword and spear. Allaah has established the religion of Islam with proof and evidence, and with the sword and spear, both together and inseparable.

This is some of the evidence from the Qur’aan and Sunnah. The evidence clearly indicates that the sword is one of the most important means that led to the spread of Islam.

1 – Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“For had it not been that Allaah checks one set of people by means of another, monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, wherein the Name of Allaah is mentioned much would surely, have been pulled down. Verily, Allaah will help those who help His (Cause). Truly, Allaah is All-Strong, All-Mighty”

[al-Hajj 22:40]

“And if Allaah did not check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief. But Allaah is full of bounty to the ‘Aalameen (mankind, jinn and all that exists)”

[al-Baqarah 2:251]

2 – Allaah has commanded us to prepare the means of fighting against the kuffaar and frightening them. He says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery) to threaten the enemy of Allaah and your enemy, and others besides whom, you may not know but whom Allaah does know”

[al-Anfaal 8:60]

If Islam was only spread by peaceful means, what would the kuffaar have to be afraid of? Of mere words spoken on the tongue? In al-Saheehayn it is narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “I have been supported with fear as far as a month’s journey.” Would the kuffaar be afraid of being told, “become Muslim, but if you do not then you are free to believe and do whatever you want”? or were they afraid of jihad and the imposition of the jizyah and being humiliated? That may make them enter Islam so that they may be spared this humiliation.

3 – When the Messenger called people to Islam, his call was accompanied by the sword, and he commanded his leaders to do likewise, so that when the people saw the serious of the Muslims in calling people to their religion, that dispelled any confusion.

Al-Bukhaari (3009) and Muslim (2406) narrated that Sahl ibn Sa’d (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said on the day of Khaybar: “Tomorrow I will give the banner to a man at whose hands victory will come, one who loves Allaah and His Messenger, and Allaah and His Messenger love him.” The people spent that night wondering which of them would be given the banner and all of them were hoping for it. Then he (the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)) said, “Where is ‘Ali?” It was said, “His eye is hurting.” So he spat in his eyes and made du’aa’ for him, and he was healed, as if there had not been anything wrong with him. Then he gave him the flag and he [‘Ali] said: “Shall I fight them so that they will be like us?” He said: “Go ahead, until you reach their encampment, then call them to Islam and tell them what they are obliged to do, for by Allaah if Allaah were to guide a man at your hands that would be better for you than having red camels [the best kind].”

So this call to Islam was accompanied by the force of arms.

Muslim (3261) narrated that Buraydah said: When the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) appointed a commander to lead an army or a raiding party, he would advise him to fear Allaah with regard to himself and the Muslims with him, then he said: “Fight in the name of Allaah and for the sake of Allaah. Fight those who disbelieve in Allaah, fight but do not steal from the war booty (before it is shared out), betray, or mutilate. Do not kill children. If you meet your enemy of the mushrikeen, call them to three things, and whichever one of them they respond to, accept that from them and leave them alone. Then call them to Islam and if they respond, accept that from them and leave them alone. If they refuse but they pay the jizyah, then they have responded to you, so accept that from them and leave them alone. If they refuse then seek the help of Allaah and fight them…”

So the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told his commanders to call the kuffaar to Islam whilst wielding their swords over their heads. If they refused to become Muslim then they should pay the jizyah with humility. If they refused then there was nothing left for them but the sword – “If they refuse then seek the help of Allaah and fight them”

4 – The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “I have been sent ahead of the Hour with the sword so that Allaah will be worshipped alone, and my provision has been placed in the shade of my spear, and humiliation has been decreed for those who go against my command, and whoever imitates a people is one of them.” Narrated by Ahmad, 4869; Saheeh al-Jaami’, 2831.

The fact that the sword and power were means of spreading Islam is not a sources of shame for Islam, rather it is one of its strengths and virtues, because that makes people adhere to that which will benefit them in this world and in the Hereafter. Many people are foolish and lacking in wisdom and knowledge, and if they are left to their own devices they will remain blinded to the truth, indulging in their whims and desires. So Allaah has prescribed jihad in order to bring them back to the truth and to that which will benefit them. Undoubtedly wisdom dictates that the fool should be prevented from doing that which will harm him, and should be forced to do that which will benefit him.

Al-Bukhaari (4557) narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: “ ‘You (true believers in Islamic Monotheism, and real followers of Prophet Muhammad and his Sunnah) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind’ [Aal- Imraan 3:110 – interpretation of the meaning].” He said: “You are the best (i.e., the most beneficial) of people for mankind, you bring them in the chains that are around their necks until they enter Islam.” Can people be brought in chains except in the case of jihad??

This is something for which Islam deserves to be praised, not condemned. The defeatists should fear Allaah lest they distort this religion and cause it to become weak on the basis of the claim that it is a religion of peace. Yes, it is the religion of peace but in the sense of saving all of mankind from worshipping anything other than Allaah and submitting all of mankind to the rule of Allaah. This is the religion of Allaah, not the ideas of any person or the product of human thought, so that those who promote it should feel ashamed to state its ultimate goal, which is that all religion (worship) should be for Allaah alone. When the ideas that people follow are all produced by human beings and the systems and laws that control their lives are all made up by human beings, then in this case each idea and each system has the right to live safely within its own borders so long as it does not transgress the borders of others, so the various ideas and laws can co-exist and not try to destroy one another. But when there is a divine system and law, and alongside it there are human systems and laws, then the matter is fundamentally different, and the divine law has the right to remove the barriers and free people from enslavement to human beings…

Fiqh al-Da’wah by Sayyid Qutb, 217-222.

It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (12/14):

Islam spread by means of proof and evidence to those who listened to the message and responded to it, and it spread by means of force and the sword to those who were stubborn and arrogant, until they were overwhelmed and became no longer stubborn, and submitted to that reality.

And Allaah knows best.

thus in conclusion according to this brother we should be not ashamed that it was spread by the sword
Reply

sonz
05-30-2006, 06:42 PM
hellooooooo

every1 knows that islam was not spread by sword. the islamqa talks about conquering i think and not forcing some1 to become muslim.

spread by sword means "force some1 to become muslim" and not conquering

there is difference

masalama
Reply

sonz
05-30-2006, 06:43 PM
Let There Be No Compulsion in Religion| Sheikh Sâmî al-Mâjid|

One of the fundamental truths established by the sacred texts is that no one can be compelled to accept Islam. It is the duty of Muslims to establish the proof of Islam to the people so that truth can be made clear from falsehood. After that, whoever wishes to accept Islam may do so and whoever wishes to continue upon unbelief may do so. No one should be threatened or harmed in any way if he does not wish to accept Islam.

Among the many decisive pieces of evidence in this regard are the following:

Allah says: “Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth has been made clear from error. Whoever rejects false worship and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows all things.” [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 256]

Allah says: “If it had been your Lord’s will, all of the people on Earth would have believed. Would you then compel the people so to have them believe?” [Sûrah Yûnus: 99]

Allah says: “So if they dispute with you, say ‘I have submitted my whole self to Allah, and so have those who follow me.’ And say to the People of the Scripture and to the unlearned: ‘Do you also submit yourselves?’ If they do, then they are on right guidance. But if they turn away, your duty is only to convey the Message. And in Allah’s sight are all of His servants.” [Sûrah Âl `Imrân: 20]

Allah says: “The Messenger’s duty is but to proclaim the Message.” [Sûrah al-Mâ’idah: 99]

It is important to note that these last two verses were revealed in Madinah. This is significant, since it shows that the ruling they gave was not just contingent on the Muslims being in Mecca in a state of weakness.

Some people might be wondering that if Islam indeed advocates such an approach, then what is all this we hear about jihad? How can we explain the warfare that the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his Companions waged against the pagans?

The answer to this is that jihad in Islamic Law can be waged for a number of reasons, but compelling people to accept Islam is simply not one of them.

The reason why jihad was first permitted in Islam was so the Muslims could defend themselves against persecution and expulsion from their homes.

Allah says: “To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged – and verily Allah is Most Powerful for their aid – (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right – (for no cause) except that they say, ‘Our Lord is Allah’. Did Allah not check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his cause, for truly Allah is full of strength and might.” [Sûrah al-Hajj: 39-40]

Many of the earliest scholars mention that these were the first verses of the Qur’ân that was revealed regarding jihad. Thereafter the following verses were revealed:

“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them and drive them out from whence they drove you out, for oppression is worse than killing. But fight them not at the sacred mosque unless they fight you there. But if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. But if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.” [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 190-193]

From this point on, the scope of jihad was broadened from being purely for defense against direct attack to being inclusive of resistance against those who suppress the faith and deny people the freedom to choose their religion for themselves. This came later, because it is legislated for the Muslims only when they are capable of doing so. In times of weakness, Muslims may only fight against direct attack.

As for the spread of Islam, this is supposed to take place peacefully by disseminating the Message with the written and spoken word. There is no place for the use of weapons to compel people to accept Islam. Weapons can only be drawn against those who persecute and oppress others and prevent them from following their own consciences in matters of belief. The Muslims cannot just stand by while people are being denied the right to believe in Islam and their voices are being crushed. This is the meaning of Allah’s words: “And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.” [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 193]

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said in his letter to the Roman governor Heracles: “I invite you to accept Islam. If you accept Islam, you will find safety. If you accept Islam, Allah will give you a double reward. However, if you turn away, upon you will be the sin of your subjects.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî and Sahîh Muslim]

Once people have heard the Message without obstruction or hindrance and the proof has been established upon them, then the duty of the Muslims is done. Those who wish to believe are free to do so and those who prefer to disbelieve are likewise free to do so.

Even when the Muslims are compelled to fight and then, as a consequence, subdue the land, their duty thereafter is to establish Allah’s law in the land and uphold justice for all people, Muslim and non-Muslim. It is not their right to coerce their subjects to accept Islam against their will. Non-Muslims under Muslim rule must be allowed to remain on their own faith and must be allowed to practice the rights of their faith, though they will be expected to respect the laws of the land.

Had the purpose of jihad been to force the unbelievers to accept Islam, the Prophet (peace be upon him) would never have commanded the Muslims to refrain from hostilities if the enemy relented. He would not have prohibited the killing of women and children. However, this is exactly what he did.

During a battle, the Prophet (peace be upon him) saw people gathered together. He dispatched a man to find out why they were gathered. The man returned and said: “They are gathered around a slain woman.” So Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: “She should not have been attacked!” Khâlid b. al-Walîd was leading the forces, so he dispatched a man to him saying: “‘Tell Khâlid not to kill women or laborers”. [Sunan Abî Dâwûd]

Therefore, even in the heat of battle against a hostile enemy, the only people who may be attacked are those who are actually participating in the fighting.

Had the purpose of jihad been to force the unbelievers to accept Islam, the rightly guided Caliphs would not have prohibited the killing of priests and monks who refrained from fighting. However, this is exactly what they did. When the first Caliph, Abû Bakr, sent an army to Syria to fight the aggressive Roman legions, he went out to give them words of encouragement. He said: “You are going to find a group of people who have devoted themselves to the worship of Allah (i.e. monks), so leave them to what they are doing.”

We have demonstrated that it is a principle in Islam that there is no compulsion in religion and we have discussed the objectives of jihad. Now, we shall turn our attentions to some texts that are often misunderstood.

One of these is the verse: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them and beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war). But if they repent and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them, for Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful.” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 5]

Some people – especially some contemporary non-Muslim critics of Islam – have tried to claim that this verse abrogates the verse “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” They argue that the generality of this statement implies that every unbeliever who refuses to accept Islam must be fought. They support their allegation by pointing out that this verse is one of the last verses to be revealed about fighting.

However, this verse in no way abrogates the principle in Islamic Law that there is no compulsion in religion. It may be general in wording, but its meaning is quite specific on account of other verses of the Qur’ân that are connected with it as well as on account of a number of pertinent hadîth. We will be discussing these texts shortly.

The people being referred to by this verse are the pagan Arabs who had been waging war against the Prophet (peace be upon him) and who had broken their covenant and treaties with him. This verse is not speaking about the other pagan Arabs who did not break their treaties and take up arms against the Muslims. It is also most definitely not speaking about the Jews or Christians, or, for that matter, the pagans who were living outside of Arabia.

If we look at the verses in Sûrah al-Tawbah immediately before and after the one under discussion, the context of the verse becomes clear.

A few verses before the one we are discussing, Allah says: “There is a declaration of immunity from Allah and His Messenger to those of the pagans with whom you have contracted mutual alliances. Go then, for four months, to and fro throughout the land. But know that you cannot frustrate Allah that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him.” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 1-2]

In these verses we see that the pagans were granted a four month amnesty with an indication that when the four months were over, fighting would resume. However, a following verse exempts some of them from the resumption of hostilities. It reads: “Except for those pagans with whom you have entered into a covenant and who then do not break their covenant at all nor aided anyone against you. So fulfill your engagements with them until the end of their term, for Allah loves the righteous.” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 4]

So when Allah says: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them and beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)” we must know that it is not general, since the verse above has qualified it to refer to the pagan Arabs who were actually at war with the Prophet (peace be upon him) and those who broke their covenants of peace.

This is further emphasized a few verses later where Allah says: “Will you not fight people who broke their covenants and plotted to expel the Messenger and attacked you first?” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 13]

Ibn al-`Arabî, in his commentary on the Qur’ân, writes: “It is clear from this that the meaning of this verse is to kill the pagans who are waging war against you.” [Ahkâm al-Qur’ân: (2/456)]

Allah also say right after the verse under discussion: “How can there be a covenant before Allah and His Messenger with the pagans except those with whom you have made a treaty near the Sacred Mosque? As long as they stand true to you, stand true to them, for Allah does love the righteous.” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 7]

Another misunderstood text is the hadîth where the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “I have been commanded to fight the people until they bear witness that there is no God but Allah and that I am Allah’s Messenger. If they do so, then there blood and their wealth are inviolable except in the dispensation of justice, and their affair is with Allah.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî and Sahîh Muslim]

There can be no qualms about this hadîth’s authenticity, since it is recorded in both Sahîh al-Bukhârî and Sahîh Muslim. However, this hadîth is also not to be taken generally, out of context, and in complete disregard to all the other textual evidence.

The term “people” here is not referring to all humanity. Ibn Taymiyah says: “It refers to fighting those who are waging war, whom Allah has permitted us to fight. It does not refer to those who have a covenant with us with whom Allah commands us to fulfill our covenant.” [Majmû` al-Fatâwâ (19/20)]

Islam commands the Muslims to be just with people of other faiths, whether they be Jews, Christians, or pagans. Islam calls us to treat them kindly and try to win their hearts as long as they do not take up arms against us. Allah says: “Allah forbids you not with regard to those who neither fight against you for your faith nor drive you out of your homes from dealing kindly and justly with them, for Allah loves those who are just.” [Sûrah al-Mumtahanah: 9-10]

Allah commands Muslims to respect their non-Muslim parents and to accompany them in this world in a good manner.

The Qur’ân commands us to argue with them in the best manner. Allah says: “Argue with the People of the Scripture in the best manner except those among them who act oppressively. Say: We believe in the revelation that has come down to us and in that which came down to you. Our God and your God is one, and it is to Him we submit ourselves as Muslims.” [Sûrah al-`Ankabût: 46]

We are ordered to uphold our covenants with the non-Muslims and not betray them or transgress against them. The Prophet (peace be upon him) gave a stern warning to us against killing a non-Muslim with whom we are at peace. He said: “Whoever kills one with whom we have a covenant will not smell the scent of Paradise.” [Sahîh Muslim]

The faith of a Muslim is not acceptable unless he believes in all of the Prophets who were sent before (peace be upon them all). Allah says: “O you who believe! Believe in Allah, His Messenger, the scripture that He revealed to His messenger and the scripture that he revealed before. Whoever disbelieves in Allah, His angels, His books, His Messengers, and the Last Day has gone far astray.” [Sûrah al-Nisâ’]

http://islamtoday.com/showme2.cfm?ca...sub_cat_id=607
Reply

sonz
05-30-2006, 06:45 PM
The First Phase : The Ideal Period

In the first phase of our history, a single individual was chosen by God and appointed to reconstruct the life of mankind on the basis of faith in the unity of Godhead, belief in the life hereafter, and obedience to the teachings of the prophets. For thirteen long years that individual preached this message in Mecca, and he was more than a preacher: he was an embodiment of the type of individual that Islam sought to produce. By his behavior and conduct, his deeds and words, his treatment of others and' his attitude towards men, he sboesed what kind of character and moral excellence Islam sought to promote and how a believer in Islam should conduct himself in the rough and tumble of life. The Prophet of Islam was a perfect embodiment of the principles that he preached and the precepts that he enjoined.

The Prophet's message and his personal example noon began to influence people, and within a few years he was joined by a large number of persons. All these converts to Islam accepted the Prophet's teaching earnestly after having fully comprehended its meaning and significance; not one of them responded to his call without understanding it in all its ramifications. And since they had adopted Islam through conscious understanding, all of them molded their lives on the pattern enjoined by the Prophet. The life of each one of the converts to Islam in Mecca during the first thirteen years underwent the transformation and revolution that Islam seeks to bring about in the lives of all men. Not only this. They also actively struggled against all the forces, internal as well as external, that stood against the revolution. In the process they readily made the greatest conceivable sacrifices for the cause and happily suffered all imaginable hardships, for they treasured the new values of life above everything else and were not prepared to abandon them at any cost. What is more striking, they did not content themselves with their personal adoption of the Islamic creed and all that it stood for : they were also determined to. establish the Islamic way of life and ensure its supremacy in the world. And they staked their liven to ensure that they would never again be governed by any other way of life.

Within thirteen years the Prophet was able to gather around him a small but devoted group of courageous and selfless people; and then he migrated along with these people to Medina, where he set up in the first instance a small city-state. The area of that state did not exceed that of a small township of the present day, its population was merely six to seven thousand. But soon this tiny state became a challenge to the whole of Arabia. Its founder and chief, the Prophet of Islam began to establish a new social order which was the very antithesis of the pre-Islamic social system of the Arabs. And within a few years he succeeded in setting up a model Islamic society and state. The social order was a perfect manifestation of the Islamic ideals of human civilization and culture, of morality and private ethics, of social justice and economic equity, of brotherhood and fraternity, of solidarity and cohesion. The teachings of Islam no longer remained mere theoretical expressions, they became a living reality in individual and social life. Now one could see with the eyes under one's brows what type of man Islam wants to produce and what type of society and economy it wants to establish and what blessings all this brings to human life.

Within eight brief years, this small State, covering a few square miles and embracing a few thousand souls came to dominate the whole of the Arabian peninsula extending over more than a million square miles. And it was not merely a political change : it brought about a total and radical transformation of the life of the community in all its aspects. Their view of life, their values, their morals, their mode of living, all underwent a revolutionary change. Both the spirit and form of their civilization and culture underwent a radical transformation which eventually changed the course of human history. The community as well as its individual members adopted a new mode of thinking, a new kind of conduct and behavior and a new aim and mission of life which they had never known during the several thousand years of their previous history. For centuries before the advent of Islam the Arabs had been split into countless political groups and factions, and their political life had been ,plagued by confusion; mutual hostility of tribal chieftains and blood wars. Islam made a clean sweep of this bloody confusion and established a unified and orderly political system. This was no mean achievement in itself; but Islam accomplished something much more difficult is bringing about an intellectual, moral and cultural revolution. It is indeed a pity that a biased historiography has misrepresented this great change as the outcome of a aeries of wars and expeditions, and many Western orientalists have all along been shouting from the housetops that Islam was spread by the sword. The truth is that the total number of persona killed on both sides in the wars fought during the days of the Prophet did not exceed one thousand and two hundred. Anyone with a grain of sense should find it easy to see that such a great revolution could not possibly have been wrought by the sword.



The Real Cause of Success

In fact the real reason for the success of that great and unique revolution was very different from what detractors of Islam have made it out to be. During the earlier years when the Prophet preached Islam in Mecca, only a small number of people could comprehend its meaning and significance. It was understood and appreciated only by those who were gifted with rare powers of intellect and comprehension, who could rise above the deep-rooted prejudices of the days of ignorance, who could recognize and accept the truth, who could follow it in practice and who possessed the moral courage to stake their lives for the sake of the ideals they had adopted. Later, with the Prophet's migration to Madinah,' the situation changed radically. With the help of a small group of devoted followers gifted with these qualities and imbued with this spirit, the Prophet succeeded in establishing an Islamic social order in Madinah. As the head of a free Islamic state be began to introduce and implement the entire Islamic scheme of reconstruction and reform and thus provided a concrete and striking manifestation of the moral, social and political ideals of the new Faith. People could now see for themselves the peace and order, the virtue and righteousness, the honesty and integrity, the equity and justice, the fraternity and equality, that an Islamic society could establish. They could see how it could resolve economic difficulties and problems and purify and ennoble the lives of men. No one, except those who refused to see, could shut his eyes to these glaring realities, which stood in such sharp contrast to the dismal state of affairs before the advent of Islam, when the hand of each was against all and society was reeking with all manner of corruption and immorality. Even those who had at one time pitted themselves against the Prophet and staked their lives in a bid to crush the new faith in the cradle began to see the light. Such stalwarts as Khalid bin Walid, Akrimah bin Abu Jehl and Amr bin Aas were converted to the new religion. Even people like Abu Sufyan and cannibalistic Hind ultimately recognized that Islam, which had brought about such radical and revolutionary changes, in Arab society, was the true religion. The Islamic social order that the Prophet had established was an irrefutable evidence of the inherent soundness of faith and doctrines upon which it was founded.

Thanks to this great revolution the Prophet succeeded in creating the new community with a new code of public morality and a new pattern of individual character. Their collective life was governed entirely by the principles and precepts of Islam. Their beliefs and thoughts were purely Islamic. Their religion was not vitiated by the worship of any deity other than Allah. Their individual and collective morality had been purged of the evils of the days of ignorance and caste in the mould of Islamic ethics. The civilization and culture of that society were perfectly in accord with the spirit of Islam, and the State was governed exclusively by the laws of Islam. The life of the community was completely devoted to the cause of Islam and every one of its members was prepared to die for the sake of his faith, for the ideals he now lived by. The community pledged to bear the standard of God and uphold His cause in the world. This became the collective ideal of the community. And it was generally believed that the very purpose of the establishment of the Islamic State was to enforce the principles of Islam in the territories under its sway and to strive to spread the Faith to other parts of the world. The propagation of Islam was the mission of the new community. The State it had succeeded in setting up was a living embodiment of the principles and ideals of Islam and was also the standard bearer of the Faith in the world.

The formation of the first Muslim community and the establishment of the first Islamic state were followed, during the period of the rightly guided Caliphate, by a phenomenal expansion of Islam which may well be described as an explosion. Within the span of a few years the tide of Islamic expansion had overwhelmed a vast part of the globe extending from Turkistan and Afghanistan to Northern Africa. This wonderful phenomenon is bound to set any intelligent student of history thinking about its causes. It should be easy to see that it could not be attributed to physical power or material superiority. The people of Arabia were not endowed with any extraordinary physical or material strength, and their land lacked even ordinary natural resources. Indeed, with the exception of the recently discovered oil, Arabia is still miserably poor in resources. Its population, does not exceed ten million even now; during the rightly guided Caliphate it must have been merely a fraction of what it is today. The causes of the phenomenon must therefore be sought in factors other than material. It is obvious that the power that led Islam to triumph was the character and conduct of its votaries as reflected in the behavior of each one of them in peace and war, in the administration of conquered lands and in the treatment of the vanquished enemies. It lay in their unflinching faith and spotless character. When power was tempered with justice, authority imbued with virtue, and leadership crowned with morality, a new historic force was released -a force that conquered not merely lands but hearts and souls. This is how the miracle was accomplished.

The subjects of the Iranian and Roman Empires, which Islam overran and vanquished, could not ,have shut their eyes to the radical difference between the character and conduct of their old and new rulers. Under the old regime, they could not have imagined in their wildest dreams the governors and other dignitaries of state living and moving about like ordinary mortals, always accessible even to the humblest of men, ever ready to hear the grievances of those in distress. When under the Islamic regime they saw such rulers, all, except those blinded by rank prejudice, were compelled to recognize the moral superiority of the new rulers and of their religion.

Like the governors and other administrators, the conquering armies of Islam showed exemplary behavior. As they would pass through a conquered city, thousands of women, attractively made up, would line up on the balconies to see

the soldiers' march past; and not one of them would raise his eyes to catch a glimpse of beauty on exhibition. Indeed, a whole army would sometimes march through a city with out becoming aware of the inviting presence of pretty women on the balconies. This was something that the peoples of these lands had never seen or heard : what they had seen and heard was that no woman's honor was safe at the hands of a conquering army. In the circumstances, it was but natural that the battalions of the new conquerors should win the hearts of the vanquished peoples.

Scrupulous regard for the honor of women was but one of the many unique features of the character and conduct of the new conquerors; strict honesty in financial and other dealings with the conquered was another. For instance, whenever, a Muslim army was forced by enemy pressure to withdraw from any part of a conquered territory, it would refund all the taxes collected from the people to meet the cost of administration, because it was no longer in a position to discharge the responsibilities of administration and of protecting their lives and properties. This was again a complete departure from the precedent set by the earlier conquerors and rulers, who, far from refunding collected levies, would rob and plunder as much as they could before evacuating an occupied territory. The peoples of those lands could not have expected any conqueror to be honest in political dealings or administrative matters; what they actually experienced now was saintly character and exemplary conduct in every aspect of life. It was virtue incarnate, and they couldn't but be overwhelmed by it.

This, then was the real power and strength which enabled the earlier Muslims to conquer a large part of the world. There is no doubt that they achieved much more through their excellent character and exemplary conduct than they did by the force of arms. Each one of them had embraced and adopted Islam on the basis of a full understanding and appreciation of the creed, and had molded his character and personality in harmony with the spirit of the Faith. Therefore, in all aspects of their lives and in all spheres of their conduct, they acted faithfully in accordance with the tenets and injunctions of Islam; no temptation could make them flinch or swerve from their path, no oppression could force them to budge an inch from their stand, nor could any power, however great and terror striking, stand in their way. The people whom they conquered and ruled were not their political slaves but their admirers and their followers. They embraced the conquerors' religion, accepted their culture and even adopted their language. And down to the present day these conquered peoples regard their Muslim conquerors as their heroes and exemplars; on the other hand they are not willing to identify themselves with their non-Muslim fellow countrymen or ancestors. Could such a radical and total change in the lives and thoughts of men have possibly been brought about by the force of arms?

That was the first phase of the history of Islam. .This is sot the occasion to discuss the details of that stage of our history.* What needs to be emphasized in the context of the present discussion is the fact that Islam achieved such spectacular success in the first phase of its history because its votaries had consciously and earnestly accepted its principles and doctrines, which were fully reflected in the life and character of individuals and the conduct of the community and because a State determined to stake its all on establishing the rule of God on earth had come into being. These were the causes that gave Islam in the very first phase 01` its history a momentum that have survived for nearly fourteen hundred years and promises to last for ever. Even today, when the Muslims are in a state of cultural degeneration almost all over the world, they 'bear the imprint of the glorious fast stage of their history. However corrupt or degenerate a Muslim may be today, he still cherishes, in his heart of hearts, the ideal of Islamic society that was established by the Prophet and maintained and consolidated by the rightly guided Caliphs. He can never completely forget that ideal which continues to illumine the world. Every Muslim is still fascinated by that ideal and desires to see it realized once again. During the many long centuries since the end of the early Caliphate, Islam has been constantly spreading, and there is no part of the world where the light of the Faith has not reached. All this expansion and progress has been in spite of the .fact that there has been no dearth amongst the Muslims of tyrannical rulers, dissolute nobles or immoral commoners. We have long since ceased. to be an ideal nation that could serve as a source of inspiration to the rest of mankind. If Islam has been spreading in the world in spite of the sorry state of the Muslims, it is because they are still enamoured of Islam in its pristine purity, as it was preached and practiced by the Prophet, his first four Caliphs and his Companions. It is that Islam which people still regard as the tree Faith and which they desire to follow. Moreover, the little virtue that one still finds in the character and conduct of Muslims is a faint reflection of the great qualities that their ancestors had developed during the earlier decades of Islam. The imprint of glorious the beginning of Islam upon the life of the community has no doubt faded a great deal with the passage of time, but it has not vanished, and its influence abides. Whatever dynamism, we find today in Islam is entirely due to the great movement that Islam generated during the initial years of its historic career.

http://www.masmn.org/documents/Books..._Today/003.htm
Reply

HeiGou
05-31-2006, 08:35 AM
Originally Posted by sonz
every1 knows that islam was not spread by sword. the islamqa talks about conquering i think and not forcing some1 to become muslim.

spread by sword means "force some1 to become muslim" and not conquering

there is difference
Well I think some of us have a different interpretation of what "spread by the Sword" means. I'd say that there was some, but not a lot, of forcing people to become Muslims. But the success of the Muslim missionary effort depended, and has always depended, on conquest. Muslims have used force to "remove the barriers" to conversion. Then once they rule a country people gradually become Muslims. The conversion depends on the conquest even if they are not forced to convert from day one.
Reply

bint_muhammed
05-31-2006, 01:59 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
Well I think some of us have a different interpretation of what "spread by the Sword" means. I'd say that there was some, but not a lot, of forcing people to become Muslims. But the success of the Muslim missionary effort depended, and has always depended, on conquest. Muslims have used force to "remove the barriers" to conversion. Then once they rule a country people gradually become Muslims. The conversion depends on the conquest even if they are not forced to convert from day one.
u kno in my opinion, i dont think you can convert people by force. believing in a religion is very personal, and no matter how many people force you in to it, your personal beliefs dont change even if your behaviour does. when these so-called force were used against non-muslims and they converted out of fear, when the leader or whatever were defeated, how come the people didnt revert back!:? and even during this time that so many converted it must be for a resean not force dont ya think?:?
peace
Reply

HeiGou
05-31-2006, 02:56 PM
Originally Posted by ya_Giney
u kno in my opinion, i dont think you can convert people by force. believing in a religion is very personal, and no matter how many people force you in to it, your personal beliefs dont change even if your behaviour does. when these so-called force were used against non-muslims and they converted out of fear, when the leader or whatever were defeated, how come the people didnt revert back!:? and even during this time that so many converted it must be for a resean not force dont ya think?:?
peace
During the conquest of India many Hindu rulers were granted truces on condition they converted. And many promptly converted back. The theory, as expressed in the books I have seen, is that while a convert may not be a good Muslims, his children will grow up Muslims in a Muslim environment and so over time the Muslim community would grow. But Muslim rulers in India developed ways of making it harder for Hindus to return to their communities. They made converts eat beef for instance. A lot of converts revert. There is a study floating about saying 4 out of every 5 American converts to Islam leave the Faith. A stupid Australian girl who claimed to be a Muslim while under arrest in Indonesia has returned to Australia and declared that she is not a Muslim. In a non-Muslim environment they can do that, of course, but perhaps in a traditional Muslim country that would be dangerous.
Reply

bint_muhammed
05-31-2006, 04:00 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
During the conquest of India many Hindu rulers were granted truces on condition they converted. And many promptly converted back. The theory, as expressed in the books I have seen, is that while a convert may not be a good Muslims, his children will grow up Muslims in a Muslim environment and so over time the Muslim community would grow. But Muslim rulers in India developed ways of making it harder for Hindus to return to their communities. They made converts eat beef for instance. A lot of converts revert. There is a study floating about saying 4 out of every 5 American converts to Islam leave the Faith. A stupid Australian girl who claimed to be a Muslim while under arrest in Indonesia has returned to Australia and declared that she is not a Muslim. In a non-Muslim environment they can do that, of course, but perhaps in a traditional Muslim country that would be dangerous.
yeah, i get what ya saying its just that inner belief cannot change. the 4 out 5 converts you mentioned above where did you get this info? and also i have grown up in a non-muslim enviroment and mashallah i'm still sincere to my faith!
Reply

ISDhillon
06-01-2006, 09:09 PM
go to any village india which is not a muslim one and they will tell you without any hatred for islam that the country was ruled by tyrannical islamic rulers and people were forcefully converted also, ofcourse your own scholars aint gonna admit to that, it would be like asking the criminal to give evidence in place of the victim, we all have to protect our egos at the end of the day and thats what this propaganda is all about way up above.
Reply

- Qatada -
06-01-2006, 09:17 PM
Originally Posted by ISDhillon
go to any village india which is not a muslim one and they will tell you without any hatred for islam that the country was ruled by tyrannical islamic rulers and people were forcefully converted also, ofcourse your own scholars aint gonna admit to that, it would be like asking the criminal to give evidence in place of the victim, we all have to protect our egos at the end of the day and thats what this propaganda is all about way up above.

If what you've said above is true. Then change the label, because their not islamic rulers if their not applying the islamic law.
Reply

ISDhillon
06-01-2006, 09:22 PM
Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
If what you've said above is true. Then change the label, because their not islamic rulers if their not applying the islamic law.
it depends, will you then accept that the muslims in india are not true muslims because their ancestors were converted by non-islamic means, its easy to say that its not the true islam in retrospect but then you have to take some responsibility because somewhere along the line islam has failed to take care of such misconduct. So no I wont change the label until your scholars accept that islam was spread by non-islamic methods.
Reply

bint_muhammed
06-01-2006, 09:51 PM
Originally Posted by ISDhillon
go to any village india which is not a muslim one and they will tell you without any hatred for islam that the country was ruled by tyrannical islamic rulers and people were forcefully converted also, ofcourse your own scholars aint gonna admit to that, it would be like asking the criminal to give evidence in place of the victim, we all have to protect our egos at the end of the day and thats what this propaganda is all about way up above.
actually mate i agree wid you! but not the fact that muslims are protecting their egos but people like you are, and you ask me why?
well because you cannot accept the fact taht peope actually converted to ISLAM and so rumours and false accusations start from the non-muslims claiming islam was spread by force!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:heated:
also when a anyone does sumet wrong their religion isnt mentioned however when a muslim does sumet wrong Islam always comes into it claiming muslim did sumet wrong. the message i trying to put across is YOU CANNOIT CONVERTS SOMEONES BELIEVES IF THEY DONT BELIEVE IN THAT RELIGION UNLESS YOU CAN GIVE UP YOUR RELIGIONFOR FEAR?:?
PEACE!
Reply

- Qatada -
06-01-2006, 09:56 PM
Originally Posted by ISDhillon
it depends, will you then accept that the muslims in india are not true muslims because their ancestors were converted by non-islamic means, its easy to say that its not the true islam in retrospect but then you have to take some responsibility because somewhere along the line islam has failed to take care of such misconduct. So no I wont change the label until your scholars accept that islam was spread by non-islamic methods.

A person is not a disbeliever because their forefathers were 'forced' into a religion.

Lets say that if you're forefathers were hindus, then you must be a hindu also?

The same way the muslims forefathers may have been 'forced' to accept islam, but that does not mean that the muslims in the world right now are muslims due to that - but they must have stuck to islam because that is their way of life and they prefer it that way.

Remember that india is not an islamic state, so they won't get the death penaltly for apostasy, yet still - they are sticking to islam because they choose to.


Allaah Almighty knows best.


Peace.
Reply

ISDhillon
06-01-2006, 09:59 PM
Originally Posted by ya_Giney
actually mate i agree wid you! but not the fact that muslims are protecting their egos but people like you are, and you ask me why?
well because you cannot accept the fact taht peope actually converted to ISLAM and so rumours and false accusations start from the non-muslims claiming islam was spread by force!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:heated:
also when a anyone does sumet wrong their religion isnt mentioned however when a muslim does sumet wrong Islam always comes into it claiming muslim did sumet wrong. the message i trying to put across is YOU CANNOIT CONVERTS SOMEONES BELIEVES IF THEY DONT BELIEVE IN THAT RELIGION UNLESS YOU CAN GIVE UP YOUR RELIGIONFOR FEAR?:?
PEACE!
i suggest you read the counteless references i have posted regarding this discussion and you will indeed see without a doubt that islam was spread by the sword, again your comments about not believing in your heart therefore you cant convert is lame, why? cos if i hold a gun to your head and ask you to tap-dance you will give me an outstanding performance, it doesnt matter in your heart whether or not you ever thought you could or would even want to tap-dance you just value the breath in your lungs more than a bullet in your brain, do you get me?

no offence to islam though,

isdhillon:)
Reply

bint_muhammed
06-01-2006, 10:03 PM
Originally Posted by ISDhillon
i suggest you read the counteless references i have posted regarding this discussion and you will indeed see without a doubt that islam was spread by the sword, again your comments about not believing in your heart therefore you cant convert is lame, why? cos if i hold a gun to your head and ask you to tap-dance you will give me an outstanding performance, it doesnt matter in your heart whether or not you ever thought you could or would even want to tap-dance you just value the breath in your lungs more than a bullet in your brain, do you get me?

no offence to islam though,

isdhillon:)
no mate that depends on a person! i would NEVER do anything even if you held a gun to my head, especially change my religion BECAUSE I AINT THAT WEAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply

ISDhillon
06-01-2006, 10:05 PM
[QUOTE]
Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
A person is not a disbeliever because their forefathers were 'forced' into a religion.
true but the fear that their children will know that their ancestors were cowards who embraced islam rather than death will not allow for the truth to ever come out.

Lets say that if you're forefathers were hindus, then you must be a hindu also?
my ancestors were muslims but they WILLINGLY took amrit and became sikhs they were not compelled to do so


The same way the muslims forefathers may have been 'forced' to accept islam, but that does not mean that the muslims in the world right now are muslims due to that - but they must have stuck to islam because that is their way of life and they prefer it that way.
true but in some muslim countries their is a closed system where people will go for asylum in other countries rather than live in islamic state cos if they renounce islam in islamic state then 2 things gonna happen, they will get killed for apostasy and then muslims in the west will say in years to come "obviously the state was not being ruled according to islamic principles", but no-one will ever correct the problem with the present. I agree though that their are muslims today who love islam even though their ancestors were forced thats cool, its just i dont like it when people deny that it happened people are looking through rose-tinted glasses and it wernt like that at the time.

Remember that india is not an islamic state, so they won't get the death penaltly for apostasy, yet still - they are sticking to islam because they choose to.
true


Allaah Almighty knows best.
true


thanks

INDY
Reply

ISDhillon
06-01-2006, 10:06 PM
Originally Posted by ya_Giney
no mate that depends on a person! i would NEVER do anything even if you held a gun to my head, especially change my religion BECAUSE I AINT THAT WEAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then your not like your ancestors cos they sold their souls in fear of death

indy
Reply

- Qatada -
06-01-2006, 10:15 PM
I believe that islam was spread with calling to tawheed and it's call was protected by the sword.

We believe that the whole world belongs to Allaah, and therefore it should all be under the rule of Allaah (which is the islamic law from the Qur'an and Sunnah.)


Even the sahabah (companions) of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) gave the enemies one of three options:


1) Accept Islam

2) Pay Jizya (a small tax)

3) The sword.


If the enemy never accepted islam, then they would have the option to pay the tax [this tax would be used to support the needy and also the government, the same way zakaah (tax from the muslims) is used to help the needy.]

If they never wanted to accept rules 1 or 2, the muslims would fight them [the government] until the nation was under islamic law and the non muslims pay the jizya, then the blood and honor of the people (including the non muslims) within that nation is sacred to the believers. And it is the duty of the muslim army to fight against any attacks that come from the outside [this includes protecting the non muslims within the muslim nation too.]


Once the government is under islamic law, the non muslims have a right still to follow their own religion according to their own law (i.e. the bible or torah etc.) as long as they pay the jizya, and they can come to learn about islam from the masjids and the government any time they wish.


----

I've heard the above from the life of 'Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) in a lecture by imaam anwar al-awlaki.

Which you can download from here insha'Allaah (God willing):
http://lectures.kalamullah.com



Allaah Almighty knows best.



Peace.
Reply

ISDhillon
06-01-2006, 10:30 PM
[QUOTE]
Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
I believe that islam was spread with calling to tawheed and it's call was protected by the sword.
well that clears things up


We believe that the whole world belongs to Allaah, and therefore it should all be under the rule of Allaah (which is the islamic law from the Qur'an and Sunnah.)
the world belonging to allah agreed, the world coming under sunnah is a totalitarian creed and i am vehemently opposed.

Even the sahabah (companions) of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) gave the enemies one of three options:


1) Accept Islam

2) Pay Jizya (a small tax)

3) The sword.
prefer option 3

If the enemy never accepted islam, then they would have the option to pay the tax [this tax would be used to support the needy and also the government, the same way zakaah (tax from the muslims) is used to help the needy.]
that is the ideal but history shows this did not go to plan.


If they never wanted to accept rules 1 or 2, the muslims would fight them [the government] until the nation was under islamic law and the non muslims pay the jizya,
did they have an option in place when they were defeated by the sword themselves?


then the blood and honor of the people (including the non muslims) within that nation is sacred to the believers. And it is the duty of the muslim army to fight against any attacks that come from the outside [this includes protecting the non muslims within the muslim nation too.]
that would be the ideal but as we know it was not the case in fact islam was used as a weapon against the non-believers even children, when they do such things to children and prescribed by islamic law, then do you think they could care less about women and adults of the non-believers:

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php?t..._Zorawar_Singh

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php?title=Fateh_Singh

Once the government is under islamic law, the non muslims have a right still to follow their own religion according to their own law (i.e. the bible or torah etc.) as long as they pay the jizya, and they can come to learn about islam from the masjids and the government any time they wish.
i prefer secularism. But if this is the way it was supposed to be then mughal rule was way off tangent from islam.

no offence,

indy:thankyou:
Reply

- Qatada -
06-01-2006, 11:05 PM
Hey.


Your points regarding the mughals etc. doesn't really hold much strength due to the fact that we don't hold our islam through what others did. Yeah they were muslims, but who actually said that they followed the islamic law in every action that they did and who said that we have to follow their example?

It's so simple to label a whole group of people under one label, just because some members of that group did an act. For instance, people could say that all white people support the war in iraq, when only a few may have agreed with it. Therefore - these kind of arguments don't really hold any strength.


Anyway, like i mentioned before - islam is based on the Qur'an and the way of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) and his companions (may Allaah be pleased with them.) And these companions were the ones who implemented the law justly and allowed others to follow their own religion and never forced anyone to accept islam.


Our beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) said:

"The tribes of Israel broke into seventy- two sects. My Ummah shall break up into seventy-three sects. All of them will be in the Fire, except one: what I am upon and my Companions." [At-Tirmidhee]


You notice from that hadith that our beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) doesn't mention the mughals, or the turks or some pakistani - but instead, he (peace be upon him) mentions the way of him (peace be upon him) and his companions (may Allaah be pleased with them) only. And i think you should take note of that, and we shouldn't always judge a whole group, just because someone else did it under the same title.


Also realise that Allaah Almighty says in the Qur'an:

"So if they believe in the like of that which you believe, they are rightly guided, but if they turn away, then they are only in opposition. So Allah will suffice you against them. And He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower." [2:137]


So we're only rightly guided if we follow the way of Allaah's messenger (peace be upon him) and if we don't follow that way, we're in the opposition. So you can't use these people i.e. to use them as representatives for islam., but instead - refer to the messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) and his companions (may Allaah be pleased with them.)



Allaah Almighty knows best.



Peace.
Reply

avk
06-02-2006, 12:10 AM
Brother I reject the fact that islam was spread by force (let me say not by sword because If I say by sword its an ambigous figure of speech)

Allah knows best , when the prophet SAW sent messages to the kings of Persia and Egypt they did not accept islam but there is a difference on how they do not accept it.

First if the ruler was a tyrant then force will be opposed however, if the ruler commences on allowing muslims inside for teaching islamic foundation there is no obligation to fight since islam is being taught inside.

Now History does not offer explicit rules for taking over the non muslim land, since each scenario can be played differently. When Muslims went inside Belad al Sham led by Abu Baker they entered because a tyrant who used to pay people of Palestine for support cutt off their supplies of money and did not give the right for people of the book to practice their religion freely. Same Applies with Spain when Jews asked muslims to free them from the system. Anyway there is no strict policy as to how and when to attack a non muslim country , as long as you have a way of sending the message of islam then the fight should be avoided as the prophet SAW said in one of his hadeeth that avoidance of battle is always recommended.

In summary , to say islam was spread by the sword we have to continue this phrase and say "islam was spread by the sword to give the right for choosing your religion"

Allah knows best
Reply

ISDhillon
06-02-2006, 06:58 AM
"Your points regarding the mughals etc. doesn't really hold much strength due to the fact that we don't hold our islam through what others did."
thats great but i dont see how this statement will offer anything new to this discussion, as far as i am concerned i have no intention of taking away your strength i just want it to be known that islam was spread by barbarians whether this weakens you is not my concern.

Yeah they were muslims, but who actually said that they followed the islamic law in every action that they did and who said that we have to follow their example?
thats great but again I have stated already that merely denying they were true muslims does not and will not ever take away responsibility from muslim people that allowed it to happen. people dont stop short of calliing america war a crusade so we wont stop short of calling this muslim barbarity.

It's so simple to label a whole group of people under one label, just because some members of that group did an act. For instance, people could say that all white people support the war in iraq, when only a few may have agreed with it. Therefore - these kind of arguments don't really hold any strength.
answered above

So you can't use these people i.e. to use them as representatives for islam., but instead - refer to the messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) and his companions (may Allaah be pleased with them.)
the problem with this is you could sit back whilst more atrocities in the name of islam occur and keep saying "there not muslims", if you dont do something to stop the tyranny then your religion has to share some of the blame, and we say it is god in his mercy who created a new religion because the old ones became impotent to the suffering in the world.

Have a nice day:thankyou:

indy
Reply

ISDhillon
06-02-2006, 07:03 AM

Now History does not offer explicit rules for taking over the non muslim land, since each scenario can be played differently. When Muslims went inside Belad al Sham led by Abu Baker they entered because a tyrant who used to pay people of Palestine for support cutt off their supplies of money and did not give the right for people of the book to practice their religion freely. Same Applies with Spain when Jews asked muslims to free them from the system. Anyway there is no strict policy as to how and when to attack a non muslim country , as long as you have a way of sending the message of islam then the fight should be avoided as the prophet SAW said in one of his hadeeth that avoidance of battle is always recommended.

nobody asked or needed the muslims to invade india they did however and eventually they were booted out with the same ferocity, islam whilst being taught to the indians was also changed by the indians, the islam being practiced in india today is praying to graves of pirs i suggest that the invasion technique does not make gods word supreme just distorted.

In summary , to say islam was spread by the sword we have to continue this phrase and say "islam was spread by the sword to give the right for choosing your religion"
a contradiction engineered to absolve islam of any misconduct but it won't rub off on me.



Have a nice day:)

indy
Reply

bint_muhammed
06-02-2006, 11:36 AM
Originally Posted by ISDhillon
Then your not like your ancestors cos they sold their souls in fear of death

indy
and also aint Indian, back in history i believe that my ancestors were Jewish, but i am not sure if this is true.
Reply

avk
06-02-2006, 01:56 PM
Well If your rejecting the muslim army coming inside India (Which I beleive came later from the time of Khalifa golden age) then your simply taking away the right of some indians to choose to either be muslims or not. Because as we know it in Indonedia and Malaysia force was not taken into consideration since dawa (invitation ) of islam was presented there visually and through discussion.In general I may have went off-topic but im discussing the islamic wars in general and not specifying on India. As for the different sects of Islam in India they are simple inovation created by the Indians themselves but I dont see how is this related to the topic islam and sword spread

Allah is the best who knows.
Reply

HeiGou
06-02-2006, 03:34 PM
Originally Posted by ya_Giney
and also aint Indian, back in history i believe that my ancestors were Jewish, but i am not sure if this is true.
It is well known that some Muslim communities in India are made up of converts who usually insist they originally came from Arabia or Persia. Bangladesh for instance. I assume you are claiming to be a Pathan? At one time Pathans were pagan too. Buddhists even. Not any more.
Reply

HeiGou
06-02-2006, 03:38 PM
Originally Posted by avk
Well If your rejecting the muslim army coming inside India (Which I beleive came later from the time of Khalifa golden age) then your simply taking away the right of some indians to choose to either be muslims or not.
The evidence that Hindus treated Muslim kindly is overwhelming - both before and after the Muslims invaded Northern India. Virtually all Muslim visitors to India mention it. There were no impediments to Muslims visiting, preaching in or trading with India, before the Muslim invasion.

Because as we know it in Indonedia and Malaysia force was not taken into consideration since dawa (invitation ) of islam was presented there visually and through discussion.
That is not true either. Islam certainly arrived peacefully through merchants, as it did in India, but once those merchants converted rulers or set up their own states, they waged war on the Buddhists and destroyed them all. If not for the Europeans they would have destroyed Bali too.

In general I may have went off-topic but im discussing the islamic wars in general and not specifying on India. As for the different sects of Islam in India they are simple inovation created by the Indians themselves but I dont see how is this related to the topic islam and sword spread
Well let me steer clear of sectarian issues, but one of the advantages of tolerant societies is that they let a range of ideas exist. India is not only a great exporter of religious ideas, it is a great shelter for the heretical. India has protected Christians destroyed elsewhere, Parsi rapidly disappearing from their homeland, Jews, and a range of other minority religions. Because the Hindus were so tolerant.
Reply

ISDhillon
06-02-2006, 07:29 PM
Well let me steer clear of sectarian issues, but one of the advantages of tolerant societies is that they let a range of ideas exist. India is not only a great exporter of religious ideas, it is a great shelter for the heretical. India has protected Christians destroyed elsewhere, Parsi rapidly disappearing from their homeland, Jews, and a range of other minority religions. Because the Hindus were so tolerant
i hate to interrupt but i feel my conscience will not allow me to stay quiet on this issue, india has a grave humans rights abuses record too obviously not as bad as moghuls but they are not free from criticism, i am talking about modern indian government, but yes in comparison they are not as bad. things are getting better now in india but they too had their heydey:)
Reply

bint_muhammed
06-02-2006, 09:52 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
It is well known that some Muslim communities in India are made up of converts who usually insist they originally came from Arabia or Persia. Bangladesh for instance. I assume you are claiming to be a Pathan? At one time Pathans were pagan too. Buddhists even. Not any more.
yeah i am pathan how do you know? is coz i said that peole claim we came from ajewish tribe or is it you understand pushtu?
Reply

ISDhillon
06-02-2006, 09:55 PM
Originally Posted by ya_Giney
yeah i am pathan how do you know? is coz i said that peole claim we came from ajewish tribe or is it you understand pushtu?
well it was the pathans who failed to prevent the onslaught of invaders from the nwfp in the first place, and when the sikhs started to attack the looters the pathans sided with us and then stabbed us in the back later on cos they wanted all the glory, so you must share some of the blame.
Reply

- Qatada -
06-03-2006, 10:41 AM
ISDhillon, why do you blame a nation by its past or by what other people did? If you're a sikh - anyone can use some people from your faith group who may have done some sort of negative act in history and say that all sikhs are like that.

Be careful of what you say.


Peace.
Reply

ISDhillon
06-03-2006, 11:44 AM
Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
ISDhillon, why do you blame a nation by its past or by what other people did? If you're a sikh - anyone can use some people from your faith group who may have done some sort of negative act in history and say that all sikhs are like that.

Be careful of what you say.


Peace.

I am willing to accept the faults of our people, you are unwilling to accept yours, so i suggest you watch your own mouth.

ISDhillon:)
Reply

bint_muhammed
06-03-2006, 02:31 PM
Originally Posted by ISDhillon
well it was the pathans who failed to prevent the onslaught of invaders from the nwfp in the first place, and when the sikhs started to attack the looters the pathans sided with us and then stabbed us in the back later on cos they wanted all the glory, so you must share some of the blame.
EXCUSE ME! i dont know what ya on bout this is first time i heard this! you sure you aint talking rubbish!:happy:
Reply

Skillganon
06-04-2006, 12:57 AM
Who care's pathan or sikh, if they did something wrong than they did something wrong, and I doubt it came from their religiouse teaching unless they where truly ignorant.
Reply

Mohsin
06-05-2006, 08:15 AM
Originally Posted by ISDhillon
I am willing to accept the faults of our people, you are unwilling to accept yours, so i suggest you watch your own mouth.

ISDhillon:)

Nice manners bro, i see you've improved on your skills in speaking to other people ;D
Reply

ISDhillon
06-05-2006, 08:53 AM
Originally Posted by Mohsin
Nice manners bro, i see you've improved on your skills in speaking to other people ;D
how comes youve changed your name i think i will change mine too:)
Reply

kadafi
06-05-2006, 06:38 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou

That is not true either. Islam certainly arrived peacefully through merchants, as it did in India, but once those merchants converted rulers or set up their own states, they waged war on the Buddhists and destroyed them all. If not for the Europeans they would have destroyed Bali too.
Are we rambling pseudo history again. The aim of some of these rulers was purely military and had no religious zeal.

As Arnold Thomas states:
The history of proselytising movements and the social influences that brought about their attention, and most of the commonly accessible histories of the Muhammadans in Indian, whether written by Europeans or by native authors, are mere chronicles of wars, campaigns and the achievements of princes, in which little mention of the religious life of the time finds a place, unless it has taken the form of fanaticism or intolerance.
Which is also endorsed by Sir Alfred C. Lyall:

The military adventurers, who founded dynasties in Northern India and carved out kingdoms in the Dekhan, care little for things spiritual; most of them had indeed no time for proselytism, being continually engaged in conquest or in civil war. They were usually rough Tartars or Moghals; themselves ill-grounded in the faith of Mahomet, and untouched by the true Semitic enthusiasm which inspired the first Arab standard bearers of Islam. The empire they set up was pure military, and it was kept in that state by the half success of their conquests and the comparative failure of their spiritual invasion. They were strong enough to prevent anything like religious amalgamation among the Hindus, and to check the gathering of tribes into nations; but so far were they from converting India, that among the Mahommedans themselves their own faith never acquired an entire and exclusive monopoly of the high offices of administration.
So what makes you seem to attribute religious zeal to these rulers who were in fact absorbed in their lust for powers.

Arnold Thomas states:

That the conversion were in the main voluntary, may be judged from the toleration that the Muslims, after the first violence of their onslaught, showed towards their idolatrous subjects. The people of Brahmanabad, for example, whose city had been taken by storm, were allowed to repair their temple, which was a means of livelihood to the Brahmans, and nobody was to be forbidden or prevented from following his own religion, and generally, where submission was made, quarter was readily given, and the people were permitted the exercise of their own creeds and laws.
The amount of myths surrounding these topic is astonishing as how people can utter such disinformation and yet pass it on as the truth.



Reply

AccountDisabled
06-06-2006, 07:07 PM
it does not matter whether the rulers were religiously minded or not the fact is that misguided rulers forced isalm onto the civilization, noone has suggested that islam is a misguided faith, the title of this thread is not about whether islam was spread by islam itself, but by the sword and it has been shown how it was.
Reply

Crescent
06-06-2006, 07:31 PM
Good thing you're banned again.
Reply

Mohsin
06-06-2006, 07:41 PM
Dhillon, try and understand bro, you can't force someone to convert. its impossible. If i were to come up to you with a gun and say if you don't convert to islam then i will kill you and rape your daughter/wife or something evil and horrible like that and then kill them, if i said that what will you do. Will you be courageous and be a "sher" and say kill me, i don't want to convert. In such an instance there is nothing wrong with anyone saying yes i will convert to islam. But do you honestly think these people will practice their beliefs at home in private when the gun is no longer around :?
if some sick minded individuals tryed to force their religion on someone, do you think that soemone will later realise "oh what a beautiful religion, I will now begin to practise it even though the guy is not around with the sword anymore"
Reply

bint_muhammed
06-06-2006, 10:06 PM
Originally Posted by Mohsin
Dhillon, try and understand bro, you can't force someone to convert. its impossible. If i were to come up to you with a gun and say if you don't convert to islam then i will kill you and rape your daughter/wife or something evil and horrible like that and then kill them, if i said that what will you do. Will you be courageous and be a "sher" and say kill me, i don't want to convert. In such an instance there is nothing wrong with anyone saying yes i will convert to islam. But do you honestly think these people will practice their beliefs at home in private when the gun is no longer around :?
if some sick minded individuals tryed to force their religion on someone, do you think that soemone will later realise "oh what a beautiful religion i will practise it even though the guy is not around with a sword anymore"
thats exactly what i've bin tryin to say! i gues you put it more clearly :brother:
Reply

HeiGou
06-07-2006, 05:33 PM
Originally Posted by Mohsin
Dhillon, try and understand bro, you can't force someone to convert. its impossible. If i were to come up to you with a gun and say if you don't convert to islam then i will kill you and rape your daughter/wife or something evil and horrible like that and then kill them, if i said that what will you do. Will you be courageous and be a "sher" and say kill me, i don't want to convert. In such an instance there is nothing wrong with anyone saying yes i will convert to islam. But do you honestly think these people will practice their beliefs at home in private when the gun is no longer around :?
if some sick minded individuals tryed to force their religion on someone, do you think that soemone will later realise "oh what a beautiful religion, I will now begin to practise it even though the guy is not around with the sword anymore"
They may practice their beliefs private at home when no one is around. But their children will go to an Islamic school. And if they practice their secret "true" religion in public they will be in trouble. Or even if their children see them practice their religion in the privacy of their own home they will be in trouble. Turkey does have a community of Muslims who are descended from forcibly converted Jews and they only marry each other. Or did. Over generations they will cease to be Whatever they were and become Whatever they are. Sicily has families that are descended from Jews as well as from Muslims. You can tell by things like the way they paint their doors. But tell them that and they might kill you. It happens and it does work.

No they might not say it was a beautiful religion, but their grandchildren might.
Reply

Mohsin
06-07-2006, 07:21 PM
No even as a minority you are more likely to not convert to a new religion. not only wikll your parents repeatedly keep putting you off it and keep telling you how bad islam is and how venomous they are that they forced out graet great...granparents to convert, and so the child will actually hate islam. I'm quyite sure you've never been Pakistan. If you were to go just ask and Hindu child living in pakistan what he thinks of islam and he wuill tell you its evil. their parents wil do anything to stop them from converting, even more so if their forefathers were forced to convert, and to be honest i wouldn't blame them

Even still, you can use todays conversions without the sword in non-muslim countries to see why it is not impossible or unlikely for there to have been peaceful conversions
Reply

chitownmuslim
06-22-2006, 09:01 PM
Originally Posted by mizan_aliashraf
Peace
Yes you are right. The books tell us that Islam was spread by da'wah and by the sword
I agree with this brother. Islam was spread by both da'wa and the sword. This isnt something that Muslims are ashamed of, on the contrary we're proud to be 'Ummat al-Jihad'. There were lands where Islam spread by da'wah such as Indonesia & Malaysia, yet there were others where Islam spread by the sword such as the spread of Islam in Persian and Roman lands. Note that both these empires were known to violently kill the inhabitants of any country or kingdom which they felt was a threat to their rule. Also, both of these countries replied violently to the Prophets da'wah to Islam, even killing the messengers of the Prophet.

My point is that Muslims follow the Quran and Sunnah, anytime the Prophet (saws) declared Jihad, it was in response to something. There were leaders throughout Islamic history who were Jihadists and Imperialists also, who wanted to expand the territory of Islamic lands, although their intentions were good (to spread Islam), Imperialism isnt something that Islam calls for. My evidence is that the Prophet or Companions never thought of expanding into Egypt after the Moqawqis (leader of Coptic Egyptians) replied kindly to the Prophets da'wah and sent him gifts. They only considered this after the Egyptians themselves asked them to liberate Egypt from Byzantine rule.

Nevertheless, my answer to the question "was Islam spread by the sword?"....
Yes in some cases it was.
Reply

sonz
06-22-2006, 09:08 PM
were not talking about conquest

were talking about forced conversions if i am right.

when non-muslims say "islam was spread by sword" they mean "muslims forced non-muslims to accept islam by use of the sword"

masalama
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
06-22-2006, 09:15 PM
Originally Posted by sonz
were not talking about conquest

were talking about forced conversions if i am right.

when non-muslims say "islam was spread by sword" they mean "muslims forced non-muslims to accept islam by use of the sword"

masalama
:sl:
Exactly right. Some Muslims don't understand what is intended by the phrase 'spread by the sword' and so they think that nothing is wrong with it. This phrase means that it was not spread through reason, contemplation, compassion, and learning but through violent imposition of the laws upon others - a view that all Muslim scholars and writers reject as untrue.

:w:
Reply

chitownmuslim
06-22-2006, 09:31 PM
Originally Posted by sonz
were not talking about conquest

were talking about forced conversions if i am right.

when non-muslims say "islam was spread by sword" they mean "muslims forced non-muslims to accept islam by use of the sword"

masalama
Sorry, ur right, I misunderstood the topic...
And I definitely agree that Muslims never forced others to accept Islam..
Reply

bint_muhammed
06-22-2006, 10:08 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
Although would you agree that a fair number of Muslims managed to acquire a fair amount of wealth along the way?
maybe, but that wasnt their intensions or means!
Reply

bint_muhammed
06-22-2006, 10:13 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
They may practice their beliefs private at home when no one is around. But their children will go to an Islamic school. And if they practice their secret "true" religion in public they will be in trouble. Or even if their children see them practice their religion in the privacy of their own home they will be in trouble. Turkey does have a community of Muslims who are descended from forcibly converted Jews and they only marry each other. Or did. Over generations they will cease to be Whatever they were and become Whatever they are. Sicily has families that are descended from Jews as well as from Muslims. You can tell by things like the way they paint their doors. But tell them that and they might kill you. It happens and it does work.

No they might not say it was a beautiful religion, but their grandchildren might.
my niece went a christian school but she doesnt believe in christianity. she understands it and respects it and everything but doeant belive in it. she knows the difference even though every morning they sing christian songs and pray, she just doesnt do it or does out of respect! the reason is coz she gets tought islam at home.
Reply

Asyur an-Nagi
06-23-2006, 08:31 AM
by Hei Gou:
By all means. The Muslims converted a few local leaders and then they forced, by means of war, Islam on the rest of the Malay world. Europeans actually turneed up in time to see the last of the Buddhist Javanese states destroyed and just in time to save Bali.


1.First: what do you mean by the muslims and a few local leaders? Islam was brought by merchants in peace ( i spent almost my whole life in Indonesia and no mouth doubt it)
2. Second: what d'ya mean by means of war (was it the same thing that potuguesan merchants inflicted with their cannons and ships?)
3. Third: what is buddhist javanese that u mean? (we still have plenty of them here)

Crusader did not kill millions of Muslims or Jews.

I say: If the criminals admit that they are guilty as charged, the prison would be so full.
__________________
Reply

HeiGou
06-23-2006, 11:40 AM
Originally Posted by Asyur an-Nagi
Originally Posted by HeiGou
The Muslims converted a few local leaders and then they forced, by means of war, Islam on the rest of the Malay world. Europeans actually turneed up in time to see the last of the Buddhist Javanese states destroyed and just in time to save Bali.
1.First: what do you mean by the muslims and a few local leaders? Islam was brought by merchants in peace ( i spent almost my whole life in Indonesia and no mouth doubt it)
I mean that the Indonesian-Malay region was very divided. Merchants came from India bringing Islam. Some of them settled and created mini-city states, some did well and intermarried with the local elite but only at the price of the locals converting. Gradually more leaders converted as it brought more trade from India and when they did they tended to enforce Islamic law on their countries and wage war on their neighbors.

2. Second: what d'ya mean by means of war (was it the same thing that potuguesan merchants inflicted with their cannons and ships?)
I mean war in the same sense as that waged by the Portuguese.

3. Third: what is buddhist javanese that u mean? (we still have plenty of them here)
Really? What is the Buddhist population of Java now? Java is over 90 percent Muslim and most of the non-Muslims, including Buddhists, are Chinese.

Originally Posted by HeiGou
Crusaders did not kill millions of Muslims or Jews.
I say: If the criminals admit that they are guilty as charged, the prison would be so full.
True but that does not change that fact.
Reply

HeiGou
06-23-2006, 11:43 AM
Originally Posted by ya_Giney
my niece went a christian school but she doesnt believe in christianity. she understands it and respects it and everything but doeant belive in it. she knows the difference even though every morning they sing christian songs and pray, she just doesnt do it or does out of respect! the reason is coz she gets tought islam at home.
Christian schools do not try to enforce Christianity. I assume she does not live in a Christian country where Christian laws are applied. Even if they were Christians have stopped executing people for apostacy. She is not a Christian and so wouldn't be executed for apostacy anyway. You see the differences here?
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
06-23-2006, 11:43 AM
We can debate it until the cows come home, what does it matter how it was spread the fact is, it has spread just as the other main religions have!
Reply

Mohsin
06-23-2006, 04:52 PM
Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
We can debate it until the cows come home, what does it matter how it was spread the fact is, it has spread just as the other main religions have!

Yeah good point bro, but the difference is people often can't take the fact islam is spreading so fast and is the fastest growing religion in the world, and resort to lieing saying it was spread by the sword :)
Reply

Isaac
06-23-2006, 05:54 PM
good point brother. its wierd how the religion known as a religion based on terror and evil is the fastest growing religion in the world. Subhanallah, they plan but Allah is the best of planners. so that their claim thrown out the window. next time those who say its spread through terror ask a conver/revert muslim, why he or she came to islam - the truth rather then just makng and having assumptions based on propoganda. if you want to know the truth go to the source. and for this particular subject the source would be a revert muslim. and inshallah you will be provided with an asnwer so beautiful hat you to inshallah will come to the truth. have i used a sword in spreading islam right know?
Reply

bint_muhammed
06-24-2006, 10:30 AM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
Christian schools do not try to enforce Christianity. I assume she does not live in a Christian country where Christian laws are applied. Even if they were Christians have stopped executing people for apostacy. She is not a Christian and so wouldn't be executed for apostacy anyway. You see the differences here?
no not really!
Reply

nimrod
06-26-2006, 04:03 AM
Ya_Giney, one action (according to one religion) would result in her death “By the Sword” and the other wouldn’t.
Do you understand now?

Thanks
Nimrod
Reply

Abdul-Raouf
06-26-2006, 04:28 AM
Christianity is spread in most places by money........
Reply

ysmeenaah
06-26-2006, 07:32 AM
Dear Rehmat,
Well done - you have done a good job of highligting the misconception of Islam. Jazak Allahkhair.
Reply

Asyur an-Nagi
06-26-2006, 09:14 AM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
I mean that the Indonesian-Malay region was very divided. Merchants came from India bringing Islam. Some of them settled and created mini-city states, some did well and intermarried with the local elite but only at the price of the locals converting. Gradually more leaders converted as it brought more trade from India and when they did they tended to enforce Islamic law on their countries and wage war on their neighbors.

enforcing Islamic law? name me a case please


I mean war in the same sense as that waged by the Portuguese.

Yes, Portuguese did wage it. But in the frame of Islam? Nay! Name me a case again.

Really? What is the Buddhist population of Java now? Java is over 90 percent Muslim and most of the non-Muslims, including Buddhists, are Chinese.

True. But they are not a mere minority. every place has their own minority. but the thing is they don't live supressed.

True but that does not change that fact.
But perception does.
Reply

Bittersteel
06-28-2006, 02:48 AM
our Prophet is accused of military expansion.what is Islam's view on this?why did he conquer tribe after tribe?
Reply

Abdul-Raouf
06-28-2006, 09:40 AM
Originally Posted by north_malaysian
In Malaysia

By trade - Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam

By sword - Christianity.

By Sword and By attracting poor by showing money - Christianity.......

Many Christian organisation attract poor people with their money..... and make promises to them that they will help in future tooo .... after those poor people get converted to Christianity.... those organisation people just leave them and go.............. This is how Christianity is growing.....:rant:
Reply

HeiGou
06-28-2006, 03:32 PM
Originally Posted by Muzammil
By Sword and By attracting poor by showing money - Christianity.......

Many Christian organisation attract poor people with their money..... and make promises to them that they will help in future tooo .... after those poor people get converted to Christianity.... those organisation people just leave them and go.............. This is how Christianity is growing.....:rant:
Really? You are aware that the state of Kelantan in Malaysia is offering RM10,000 to each Christian Minister who marries an orang asli (aboriginal) woman and so converts her to Christianity? Indeed the state government is promising each Christian Preacher RM1,000 a month living expenses, free accomodation and a free car.

How do you feel about that?
Reply

Hijrah
06-29-2006, 01:35 PM
"of any organized attempt to force the acceptance of Islam on the non-Muslim population, or of any systematic persecution intended to stamp out the Christian religion, we hear nothing. Had the caliphs chosen to adopt either course of action, they might have swept away Christianity as easily as Ferdinand and Isabella drove Islam out of Spain, or Louis XIV made Protestantism penal in France, or the Jews were kept out of England for 350 years. The Eastern Churches in Asia were entirely cut off from communion with the rest of Christiandom throughout which no one would have been found to lift a finger on their behalf, as heretical communions. So that the very survival of these Churches to the present day is a strong proof of the generally tolerant attitude of Mohammedan [sic] governments towards them"( Arnold, Sir Thomas W., The Preaching of Islam, a History of the Propagation of the Muslim Faith, Westminister A. Constable & Co., London, 1896, p. 80)

Also when Moors conquered Spain...Jew prospered in Society...When Christianscame back into rule oppression continued and they fled to where? MUSLIM-RULED OTTOMAN TURKEY! There is still a Spanish speaking Jewish community there today..
Reply

bint_muhammed
06-30-2006, 01:55 PM
my bro's and sis the non-muslims use this as to give them selves some peace of mind, as they cannot accpet people were turning to islam. lets leave it at that!
Reply

duskiness
06-30-2006, 03:44 PM
Originally Posted by ya_Giney
as they cannot accpet people were turning to islam.
:rollseyes only this?
n.
Reply

Hijrah
06-30-2006, 04:19 PM
Originally Posted by duskiness
:rollseyes only this?
n.
:giggling: that is one post, I think the idea of Islam being spread by the sword has been refuted, many non-muslimsagree that even though some muslims through out history went too far, in many places including in today's times it was spread through peaceful means...
Reply

A7med
08-18-2006, 07:54 AM
WAS ISLAM SPREAD BY THE SWORD?

Question:
How can Islam be called the religion of peace when it was spread by the sword?

Answer:
It is a common complaint among some non-Muslims that Islam would not have
millions of adherents all over the world, if it had not been spread by the use of
force. The following points will make it clear, that far from being spread by the
sword, it was the inherent force of truth, reason and logic that was responsible
for the rapid spread of Islam.

1. Islam means peace.
Islam comes from the root word ‘salaam’, which means peace. It also means
submitting one’s will to Allah (swt). Thus Islam is a religion of peace, which is
acquired by submitting one’s will to the will of the Supreme Creator, Allah (swt).

2. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace.
Each and every human being in this world is not in favour of maintaining peace
and harmony. There are many, who would disrupt it for their own vested
interests. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace. It is precisely for
this reason that we have the police who use force against criminals and antisocial
elements to maintain peace in the country. Islam promotes peace. At the
same time, Islam exhorts it followers to fight where there is oppression. The
fight against oppression may, at times, require the use of force. In Islam force
can only be used to promote peace and justice.

3. Opinion of historian De Lacy O’Leary.
The best reply to the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword is given by
the noted historian De Lacy O’Leary in the book “Islam at the cross road” (Page 8):
“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 myth that historians have ever repeated.”

4. Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years.
Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. The Muslims in Spain never used the
sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to
Spain and wiped out the Muslims. There was not a single Muslim in Spain who
could openly give the adhan, that is the call for prayers.

5. 14 million Arabs are Coptic Christians.
Muslims were the lords of Arabia for 1400 years. For a few years the British
ruled, and for a few years the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia
for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians
i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would
not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.

- Dr Zakir Naik

Complete Article
Reply

Woodrow
08-18-2006, 08:20 AM
It is now a mute point and it is not good to mention the errors of others after they are long gone. But my Mother's ancestors fought against the Crusaders for nearly 400 years. They did conquer our Polish neighbors and forced them into christianity. However Lithuania managed to keep them off. The crusaders did not just go into the Mid-East to "save" the Holy land they also invaded Eastern Europe, the Baltic countries and east ward in an attempt to force the people into Christianity. With the Exception of Lithuania at that time none of those countries had a noticible Muslim population. Lithuanian Nobility was Shared with the Lipkas, (Muslim Tarters) and the Arabic alphabet was used for writing the Lithuanian language. My Mother's ancestors did not convert to Christianity, it was forced down the throats of th Polish neighbors and later when Polan and Lithuania were one country it did spread. The Lipkas were driven out of the country, the mosques except 4 destroyed and by the time of WW1 the last had been exilled to Siberia under Russian rule. Now, there is a resurgence of Islam in Lithuania. About 3,000 Lipkas have returned to Vilnius and Kaunas. The Cyrillic (Russian) alphabet is still used for writing the language, but I suspect the Lipkas will stir up interest for people to return to the Arabic Alphabet.
Reply

sameena
08-19-2006, 10:00 AM
masha-Allah
Reply

Jayda
08-23-2006, 12:38 AM
Originally Posted by Rehmat
The western non-Muslim – both historians and intellectuals are at loss to prove that Islam was spread - not by PEACEFUL MEANS but by SWORD.

Allow me to expose this Jewish Myth in detail:

Islam comes from the root word ‘salaam’, which means peace. It also means submitting one’s will to Allah. Thus Islam is a religion of peace, which is acquired by submitting one’s will to the will of the Supreme Creator.

Each and every human being in this world is not in favour of maintaining peace and harmony. There are many, who would disrupt it for their own vested interests. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace. It is precisely for this reason that we have the police who use force against criminals and anti-social elements to maintain peace in the country. Islam promotes peace. At the same time, Islam exhorts it followers to fight where there is oppression. The fight against oppression may, at times, require the use of force. In Islam force can only be used to promote peace and justice.

The best reply to the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword is given by the noted historian De Lacy O’Leary in the book "Islam at the cross road" -: "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 myth that historians have ever repeated."

Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. The Muslims in Spain never used the sword to force the Christian and Jew SERFS (Slaves) to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out over five million Muslims and Jews. There was not a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the Adhan.

Muslims were the lords of Arabia for a long time. For a few century the British and the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 20 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.

Indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of Muslims in the world. The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. May one ask, "Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia?"
The famous historian, Thomas Carlyle, in his book "Heroes and Hero worship", refers to this misconception about the spread of Islam: "The sword indeed, but where will you get your sword?

Every new opinion, at its starting is precisely in a minority of one. In one man’s head alone. There it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all men. That he takes a sword and try to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can."

Today the fastest growing religion in America is Islam. The fastest growing religion in Europe in Islam - Which sword is forcing people in the West to accept Islam in such large numbers?
Why did you say that about Jews... and the Spanish reconquered Spain, it was their home to begin with...
Reply

abumusa
06-24-2007, 06:58 PM
"This is something for which Islam deserves to be praised, not condemned. The defeatists should fear Allaah lest they distort this religion and cause it to become weak on the basis of the claim that it is a religion of peace.

Yes, it is the religion of peace but in the sense of saving all of mankind from worshipping anything other than Allaah and submitting all of mankind to the rule of Allaah. This is the religion of Allaah, not the ideas of any person or the product of human thought, so that those who promote it should feel ashamed to state its ultimate goal, which is that all religion (worship) should be for Allaah alone.

When the ideas that people follow are all produced by human beings and the systems and laws that control their lives are all made up by human beings, then in this case each idea and each system has the right to live safely within its own borders so long as it does not transgress the borders of others, so the various ideas and laws can co-exist and not try to destroy one another.

But when there is a divine system and law, and alongside it there are human systems and laws, then the matter is fundamentally different, and the divine law has the right to remove the barriers and free people from enslavement to human beings…"

Fiqh al-Da’wah by Sayyid Qutb, 217-222
Reply

Nerd
06-27-2007, 10:47 AM
Can someone give an interpretation of the following verses:

1. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. (Surah: Al-Baqara, 2:191)

2. O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil). ( Surah: Al-Tawba, 9:123)

3. So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. ( Surah: Al-Tawba, 9:5)

4. O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand. ( Surah: Al-Anfal, 8:65)

5. So do not follow the unbelievers, and strive against them a mighty striving with it. (Surah:Al-Furqan, 25:52)

6. So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish. (Surah: Muhammad, 47:4)
Reply

MuhammadRizan
06-27-2007, 01:26 PM
salam.

those verse we're revealed during hostile and war situation, which is no way to turn back.

it's sound so nasty is because to encourage muslim to stand and fight!, as you see most war during Prophet lifetime the enemy always outnumbered Muslims,and most of the times muslim will face their own pagan or hypocrite relatives.

Muslim also cannot afford to loose in this beginning stage, Islam is as stake.

that's why they need 'more sounding' encouragement and reassurance.

i
Reply

Abdul-Raouf
11-06-2007, 06:48 AM

MAHATMA GANDHI
Speaking on the character of Muhammad, (pbuh)
says in YOUNG INDIA:


"I wanted to know the best of one who holds today's undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind..
I became more than convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life."

"It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the
scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to this friends and
followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in
his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the 2nd volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of the great life."
Reply

NYCmuslim
11-06-2007, 02:07 PM
I think our point made on this matter why did you dig this thread back up from a year ago???
Reply

جوري
11-07-2007, 01:57 AM
bump.. a gem of a thread...
would be nice to see the old crowd come back and breathe some life into the forum..but I suppose with the likes of our newbies 'Knute' et al. one would wonder come back for what?

:w:
Reply

Abdul-Raouf
11-07-2007, 02:19 AM
Originally Posted by NYCmuslim
I think our point made on this matter why did you dig this thread back up from a year ago???
Just added a new info..to the thread...which was related to the title..
Reply

Ghira
11-07-2007, 02:47 AM
Originally Posted by Abu Zakariya
I, as a Bosnian and European, am proud of being a "product of Jihad", in the sense that I'm a Muslim today because Muslims conquered Bosnia. The Muslims conquered Bosnia and let the people stay Christians. However, a lot of the people in Bosnia became Muslims including my ancestors.
Islam started out with the Prophet salallahu 'alayhi wa sallam, Khadeejah, Abu Bakr, 'Ali may God be pleased with them, and spread all the way to Bosnia.
I'm very proud of this.

Muslims don't wage Jihad to get oil or because of racism like some did/still do.
Jihad is to make God's word supreme.
:sl:
Enough said!!! End of discussion close the books.

:happy:
Reply

guyabano
11-07-2007, 08:30 AM
Originally Posted by Abdul-Raouf
Just added a new info..to the thread
What info ?
Reply

barney
11-09-2007, 04:13 AM
Originally Posted by abumusa;776785 But when there is a divine system and law, and alongside it there are human systems and laws, then the matter is fundamentally different, and [B
the divine law has the right to remove the barriers and free people from enslavement to human beings[/B]…"

Fiqh al-Da’wah by Sayyid Qutb, 217-222
At the point of a Rifle?
Why does God need lots of little people with guns?
The divine law will surely assert itself when it wants to assert itself. If allah wished unbeleivers to die...he would say "Die" and it would be so.
Reply

ranma1/2
11-10-2007, 11:42 PM
i find that many religions are partialy spread by force. Islam and christanity are both guilty of this. Both have also been spread by more peaceful means. Both have also been spread by indoctrinization as well.
Reply

MadeenJibreel
11-19-2007, 10:10 PM
Originally Posted by ranma1/2
i find that many religions are partialy spread by force. Islam and christanity are both guilty of this. Both have also been spread by more peaceful means. Both have also been spread by indoctrinization as well.
I don't see no "findings" - prove what you "parrot" please.
Reply

Jayda
11-19-2007, 10:12 PM
jewish myth?
Reply

wilberhum
11-19-2007, 10:29 PM
Originally Posted by MadeenJibreel
I don't see no "findings" - prove what you "parrot" please.
Try Google. Look for yourself. No matter what anyone brings you will just deny the source.

But surly there must be varying definitions of "spread by SWORD".

I think if I have to choose between conversion or having my head cut off, I call that "spread by SWORD".

Also if the country I live in is conquered and I will receive many social/financial advantages if I convert, I conceder that "spread by SWORD".

So by my definition, I don’t see how any religion can say they, to some degree were not "spread by SWORD".

I also think it is obvious that most conversions are sincere and have nothing to do with the sword. But to say all 100% are sincere is to ignore the diversity of humanity.
Reply

barney
11-20-2007, 12:00 AM
I'm happy to accept that some, heck...why not....even most of the lands conqured by Islam, simply accepted its truth and wisdom and lived happily ever after, until the hethen came and started ruining everything that was perfect.

I just know that if a Islamic Army rolled down the streets of pontefract right now, I would say pretty damm well whatever they wanted me to say.
Reply

جوري
11-20-2007, 12:05 AM
^^^ that was deep and reflective...

eh..the fate of all grand things...another sublime thread ends up in foam..
Reply

barney
11-20-2007, 12:29 AM
Cheers PA, thought you would like that.

Consider the thread wrapped.

All religions use "God" as an excuse to butcher anyone who thinks different.

And so. Thread Closed

(For entry into the Agnostic Club, simply give 25&#37; of all your wealth to Paypal@barney. UK)
Reply

جوري
11-20-2007, 12:37 AM
Originally Posted by barney
Cheers PA, thought you would like that.
did I give that impression? No I like heavy weights...

Consider the thread wrapped.
Never wrapped until I give the last punch
All religions use God as an excuse to butcher anyone who thinks different.
Eh start your own cult and get a slice of the pie :p

And so. Thread Closed
Nonsense!

(For entry into the Agnostic Club, simply give 25&#37; of all your wealth to Paypal@barney.UK)
I think your cult deserves a partially eaten twinkie if at all...



cheers
Reply

InToTheRain
11-20-2007, 01:10 AM
Originally Posted by barney

All religions use "God" as an excuse to butcher anyone who thinks different.
In Islam there is no compulsion, we can't kill people for "Thinking" differently :ooh:

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

FYI:

[PIE]It is a common complaint among some non-Muslims that Islam would not have millions of adherents all over the world, if it had not been spread by the use of force. The following points will make it clear, that far from being spread by the sword, it was the inherent force of truth, reason and logic that was responsible for the rapid spread of Islam.
1. Islam means peace. Islam comes from the root word ‘salaam’, which means peace. It also means submitting one’s will to Allah (swt). Thus Islam is a religion of peace, which is acquired by submitting one’s will to the will of the Supreme Creator, Allah (swt).


2. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace. Each and every human being in this world is not in favour of maintaining peace and harmony. There are many, who would disrupt it for their own vested interests. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace. It is precisely for this reason that we have the police who use force against criminals and anti-social elements to maintain peace in the country. Islam promotes peace. At the same time, Islam exhorts it followers to fight where there is oppression. The fight against oppression may, at times, require the use of force. In Islam force can only be used to promote peace and justice.

3.Opinion of historian De Lacy O’Leary. The best reply to the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword is given by the noted historian De Lacy O’Leary in the book "Islam at the cross road" (Page 8): "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 myth that historians have ever repeated."


4. Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years. Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. The Muslims in Spain never used the sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims. There was not a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the adhan, that is the call for prayers.


5. 14 million Arabs are Coptic Christians. Muslims were the lords of Arabia for 1400 years. For a few years the British ruled, and for a few years the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.


6. More than 80% non-Muslims in India. The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword.


7. Indonesia and Malaysia. Indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of Muslims in the world. The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. May one ask, "Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia?"


8. East Coast of Africa. Similarly, Islam has spread rapidly on the East Coast of Africa. One may again ask, if Islam was spread by the sword, "Which Muslim army went to the East Coast of Africa?"


9. Thomas Carlyle. The famous historian, Thomas Carlyle, in his book "Heroes and Hero worship", refers to this misconception about the spread of Islam: "The sword indeed, but where will you get your sword? Every new opinion, at its starting is precisely in a minority of one. In one man’s head alone. There it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all men. That he takes a sword and try to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can."


10. No compulsion in religion. With which sword was Islam spread? Even if Muslims had it they could not use it to spread Islam because the Qur’an says in the following verse: "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error" [Al-Qur’an 2:256] 11. Sword of the Intellect. It is the sword of intellect. The sword that conquers the hearts and minds of people. The Qur’an says in Surah Nahl, chapter 16 verse 125: "Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious." [Al-Qur’an 16:125]


12. Increase in the world religions from 1934 to 1984. An article in Reader’s Digest ‘Almanac’, year book 1986, gave the statistics of the increase of percentage of the major religions of the world in half a century from 1934 to 1984. This article also appeared in ‘The Plain Truth’ magazine. At the top was Islam, which increased by 235%, and Christianity had increased only by 47%. May one ask, which war took place in this century which converted millions of people to Islam?


13. Islam is the fastest growing religion in America and Europe. Today the fastest growing religion in America is Islam. The fastest growing religion in Europe in Islam. Which sword is forcing people in the West to accept Islam in such large numbers?


14. Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson. Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson rightly says, "People who worry that nuclear weaponry will one day fall in the hands of the Arabs, fail to realize that the Islamic bomb has been dropped already, it fell the day MUHAMMED (pbuh) was born".
[/PIE]
Reply

al-muslimah
11-20-2007, 01:17 AM
Islam coming from the root word salam--peace, has nothing to do with Islam this is the way a moderate defines islam. Islam means submission to the will of Allah.

Islam was in a way spread by jihad which they mean by the sword but the people weren't forced to become muslims by the sword but where conquered in this way by means of dawah and jihad.Jihad is a fard. Fard kifaya to be exact ( colloective duty) but today it has become a fard ayn( individual duty).
First jihad then they have three choices the(kuffar)
1. acept islam, then they are good to go and are given the book of Allah to rule with
2. if they refuse to accept Islam after dawah then they have to pay jizya( tax money non muslims pay to the islamic state)
3. if they refuse that then we seek Allah help and fight them till victory or martyrdom.
----from sahih hadith in sahih bukhari
Reply

barney
11-20-2007, 07:04 AM
Originally Posted by al-muslimah
First jihad then they have three choices the(kuffar)
1. acept islam, then they are good to go and are given the book of Allah to rule with
2. if they refuse to accept Islam after dawah then they have to pay jizya( tax money non muslims pay to the islamic state)
3. if they refuse that then we seek Allah help and fight them till victory or martyrdom.
----from sahih hadith in sahih bukhari
So War: then after conquoring:
1 Accept
2. Submit
3. Die

Most muslims try and dress this up a little y'know?
Reply

InToTheRain
11-20-2007, 04:17 PM
Originally Posted by barney
So War: then after conquoring:
1 Accept
2. Submit
3. Die
I fail to see how these conditions only apply to Islam. In UK I either accept the lifestyle of all around me if not at least I submit to it's laws and regulations and people that are a threat to the nations security killed.
Reply

wilberhum
11-20-2007, 05:39 PM
Originally Posted by Z.AL-Rashid
I fail to see how these conditions only apply to Islam. In UK I either accept the lifestyle of all around me if not at least I submit to it's laws and regulations and people that are a threat to the nations security killed.
How in the world did you ever come to the conclusion that "spread by SWORD" only apply to Islam?

The whole thing is about the fact, reguardless of constant denial", that to some degree Islam was "spread by SWORD".
Reply

barney
11-20-2007, 06:44 PM
Originally Posted by Z.AL-Rashid
I fail to see how these conditions only apply to Islam. In UK I either accept the lifestyle of all around me if not at least I submit to it's laws and regulations and people that are a threat to the nations security killed.
In the UK , you havnt been Conquered, Indeed, you may well have come HERE from abroad or at least parents or Grandparents did.
You dont have to submit, you can pray freely at no extra cost ,wear what you want, beleive what you want, get a job without restrictions and generally not submit. Indeed the country changes and submits to accommadate other beleifs.
And lastly Die: So if your a muslim who dosnt submit to UK laws, your killed?
OK, name me one Muslim in the UK who died in this way, apart from those who died whilst defying the UK law that you shouldnt go about blowing people to bits, and they dont count because they were not killed by the state , but by themselves in the act of mass murder.

So on all three counts, you havnt a leg to stand on. Just bluster.
Reply

noorahmad
11-20-2007, 08:32 PM
A jewish-athiests response to the Popes remark on Muhammad (saw), its brilliant! This is what i was talking about some time back, dont know if anyone remembers..

Since the days when Roman Emperors threw Christians to the lions, the relations between the emperors and the heads of the church have undergone many changes.

Constantine the Great, who became Emperor in the year 306 - exactly 1700 years ago - encouraged the practice of Christianity in the empire, which included Palestine. Centuries later, the church split into an Eastern (Orthodox) and a Western (Catholic) part. In the West, the Bishop of Rome, who acquired the title of Pope, demanded that the Emperor accept his superiority.

The struggle between the Emperors and the Popes played a central role in European history and divided the peoples. It knew ups and downs. Some Emperors dismissed or expelled a Pope, some Popes dismissed or excommunicated an Emperor. One of the Emperors, Henry IV, "walked to Canossa", standing for three days barefoot in the snow in front of the Pope's castle, until the Pope deigned to annul his excommunication.

But there were times when Emperors and Popes lived in peace with each other. We are witnessing such a period today. Between the present Pope, Benedict XVI, and the present Emperor, George Bush II, there exists a wonderful harmony. Last week's speech by the Pope, which aroused a world-wide storm, went well with Bush's crusade against "Islamofascism", in the context of the "Clash of Civilizations".

In his lecture at a German university, the 265th Pope described what he sees as a huge difference between Christianity and Islam: while Christianity is based on reason, Islam denies it. While Christians see the logic of God's actions, Muslims deny that there is any such logic in the actions of Allah.

As a Jewish atheist, I do not intend to enter the fray of this debate. It is much beyond my humble abilities to understand the logic of the Pope. But I cannot overlook one passage, which concerns me too, as an Israeli living near the fault-line of this "war of civilizations".

In order to prove the lack of reason in Islam, the Pope asserts that the prophet Muhammad ordered his followers to spread their religion by the sword. According to the Pope, that is unreasonable, because faith is born of the soul, not of the body. How can the sword influence the soul?

To support his case, the Pope quoted - of all people - a Byzantine Emperor, who belonged, of course, to the competing Eastern Church. At the end of the 14th century, the Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus told of a debate he had - or so he said (its occurrence is in doubt) - with an unnamed Persian Muslim scholar. In the heat of the argument, the Emperor (according to himself) flung the following words at his adversary:

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".

These words give rise to three questions: (a) Why did the Emperor say them? (b) Are they true? (c) Why did the present Pope quote them?

When Manuel II wrote his treatise, he was the head of a dying empire. He assumed power in 1391, when only a few provinces of the once illustrious empire remained. These, too, were already under Turkish threat.

At that point in time, the Ottoman Turks had reached the banks of the Danube. They had conquered Bulgaria and the north of Greece, and had twice defeated relieving armies sent by Europe to save the Eastern Empire. On May 29, 1453, only a few years after Manuel's death, his capital, Constantinople (the present Istanbul) fell to the Turks, putting an end to the Empire that had lasted for more than a thousand years.

During his reign, Manuel made the rounds of the capitals of Europe in an attempt to drum up support. He promised to reunite the church. There is no doubt that he wrote his religious treatise in order to incite the Christian countries against the Turks and convince them to start a new crusade. The aim was practical, theology was serving politics.

In this sense, the quote serves exactly the requirements of the present Emperor, George Bush II. He, too, wants to unite the Christian world against the mainly Muslim "Axis of Evil". Moreover, the Turks are again knocking on the doors of Europe, this time peacefully. It is well known that the Pope supports the forces that object to the entry of Turkey into the European Union.

Is There any truth in Manuel's argument?

The pope himself threw in a word of caution. As a serious and renowned theologian, he could not afford to falsify written texts. Therefore, he admitted that the Qur'an specifically forbade the spreading of the faith by force. He quoted the second Sura, verse 256 (strangely fallible, for a pope, he meant verse 257) which says: "There must be no coercion in matters of faith".

How can one ignore such an unequivocal statement? The Pope simply argues that this commandment was laid down by the prophet when he was at the beginning of his career, still weak and powerless, but that later on he ordered the use of the sword in the service of the faith. Such an order does not exist in the Qur'an.

Jesus said: "You will recognize them by their fruits." The treatment of other religions by Islam must be judged by a simple test: How did the Muslim rulers behave for more than a thousand years, when they had the power to "spread the faith by the sword"?

Well, they just did not.

For many centuries, the Muslims ruled Greece. Did the Greeks become Muslims? Did anyone even try to Islamize them? On the contrary, Christian Greeks held the highest positions in the Ottoman administration. The Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians and other European nations lived at one time or another under Ottoman rule and clung to their Christian faith. Nobody compelled them to become Muslims and all of them remained devoutly Christian.

True, the Albanians did convert to Islam, and so did the Bosniaks. But nobody argues that they did this under duress. They adopted Islam in order to become favorites of the government and enjoy the fruits.

In 1099, the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and massacred its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants indiscriminately, in the name of the gentle Jesus. At that time, 400 years into the occupation of Palestine by the Muslims, Christians were still the majority in the country. Throughout this long period, no effort was made to impose Islam on them. Only after the expulsion of the Crusaders from the country, did the majority of the inhabitants start to adopt the Arabic language and the Muslim faith - and they were the forefathers of most of today's Palestinians.

There is no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did the great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together and translated the ancient Greek philosophical and scientific texts. That was, indeed, the Golden Age. How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the "spreading of the faith by the sword"?
What happened afterwards is even more telling. When the Catholics re-conquered Spain from the Muslims, they instituted a reign of religious terror. The Jews and the Muslims were presented with a cruel choice: to become Christians, to be massacred or to leave. And where did the hundreds of thousand of Jews, who refused to abandon their faith, escape? Almost all of them were received with open arms in the Muslim countries. The Sephardi ("Spanish") Jews settled all over the Muslim world, from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east, from Bulgaria (then part of the Ottoman Empire) in the north to Sudan in the south. Nowhere were they persecuted. They knew nothing like the tortures of the Inquisition, the flames of the auto-da-fe, the pogroms, the terrible mass-expulsions that took place in almost all Christian countries, up to the Holocaust.

Why? Because Islam expressly prohibited any persecution of the "peoples of the book". In Islamic society, a special place was reserved for Jews and Christians. They did not enjoy completely equal rights, but almost. They had to pay a special poll-tax, but were exempted from military service - a trade-off that was quite welcome to many Jews. It has been said that Muslim rulers frowned upon any attempt to convert Jews to Islam even by gentle persuasion - because it entailed the loss of taxes.

Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times "by the sword" to get them to abandon their faith.

The story about "spreading the faith by the sword" is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims - the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna. I suspect that the German Pope, too, honestly believes in these fables. That means that the leader of the Catholic world, who is a Christian theologian in his own right, did not make the effort to study the history of other religions.

Why did he utter these words in public? And why now?

There is no escape from viewing them against the background of the new Crusade of Bush and his evangelist supporters, with his slogans of "Islamofascism" and the "Global War on Terrorism" - when "terrorism" has become a synonym for Muslims. For Bush's handlers, this is a cynical attempt to justify the domination of the world's oil resources. Not for the first time in history, a religious robe is spread to cover the nakedness of economic interests; not for the first time, a robbers' expedition becomes a Crusade.

The speech of the Pope blends into this effort. Who can foretell the dire consequences?

Uri Avnery is a journalist, peace activist, former member of the Knesset, and leader of Gush Shalom

(i havent read the whole debate, there is too much to read, i just posted this, to help those debating that islam wasnt spread by the sword.)
Reply

wilberhum
11-20-2007, 08:42 PM
I'm confused. Are you saying is was or it wasn't?

If you say it wasn't, please define what your think "spread by SWORD" means.
Reply

noorahmad
11-20-2007, 08:45 PM
it wasnt spread by the sword, read the article i posted!!!
Reply

جوري
11-20-2007, 08:49 PM
There is 15 pages of good debate and referenced history, give or take.. why not start with those instead of recycling page one all over again with accept, submit or die? seems like we are confusing colonial British history with Islamic one again?.. ah shucks!
Reply

Jayda
11-20-2007, 08:51 PM
i tend to think of reptitive one line phrases like 'spread by the sword' and 'religion of peace' as oversimplifications...
Reply

wilberhum
11-20-2007, 08:51 PM
Originally Posted by noorahmad
it wasnt spread by the sword, read the article i posted!!!
Please define "spread by SWORD". :grumbling
Reply

InToTheRain
11-21-2007, 12:13 AM
Originally Posted by barney
In the UK , you havnt been Conquered, Indeed, you may well have come HERE from abroad or at least parents or Grandparents did.
After our lands were ravaged by the British we thought we would come get some of it back you know what Im sayin :ooh:

http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/itihas/1857.htm

Originally Posted by barney
You dont have to submit, you can pray freely at no extra cost ,wear what you want, beleive what you want, get a job without restrictions and generally not submit. Indeed the country changes and submits to accommadate other beleifs.
LOL :D Can't believe you just said that :ooh: good rofls though :ooh:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...on/6382247.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...rd/6282459.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6194032.stm

By the way did you read all the information I provided in my last post? :D

Originally Posted by barney
And lastly Die: So if your a muslim who dosnt submit to UK laws, your killed?
OK, name me one Muslim in the UK who died in this way, apart from those who died whilst defying the UK law that you shouldnt go about blowing people to bits, and they dont count because they were not killed by the state , but by themselves in the act of mass murder.
Indeed, if something or someone is a threat to the people of it's nation they are killed or dealt with. Why mention that which I have stated already?

Originally Posted by barney
So on all three counts, you havnt a leg to stand on. Just bluster.
:D indeed look at me Bluster ---> :ooh: :playing: :grumbling :eek:
;D
Reply

al-muslimah
11-21-2007, 12:19 AM
" SPREAD BY THE SWORD " means jihad.

By Abu Zakaria--I, as a Bosnian and European, am proud of being a "product of Jihad", in the sense that I'm a Muslim today because Muslims conquered Bosnia. The Muslims conquered Bosnia and let the people stay Christians. However, a lot of the people in Bosnia became Muslims including my ancestors.
Islam started out with the Prophet salallahu 'alayhi wa sallam, Khadeejah, Abu Bakr, 'Ali may God be pleased with them, and spread all the way to Bosnia.
I'm very proud of this.

Muslims don't wage Jihad to get oil or because of racism like some did/still do.
Jihad is to make God's word supreme.

Mashallah you are right and I agree.
Reply

wilberhum
11-21-2007, 12:25 AM
Originally Posted by al-muslimah
" SPREAD BY THE SWORD " means jihad.

By Abu Zakaria--I, as a Bosnian and European, am proud of being a "product of Jihad", in the sense that I'm a Muslim today because Muslims conquered Bosnia. The Muslims conquered Bosnia and let the people stay Christians. However, a lot of the people in Bosnia became Muslims including my ancestors.
Islam started out with the Prophet salallahu 'alayhi wa sallam, Khadeejah, Abu Bakr, 'Ali may God be pleased with them, and spread all the way to Bosnia.
I'm very proud of this.

Muslims don't wage Jihad to get oil or because of racism like some did/still do.
Jihad is to make God's word supreme.

Mashallah you are right and I agree.
So Islam was spread by the sword. Thank you.
Reply

al-muslimah
11-21-2007, 12:27 AM
Your welcome.

Not enirely but that is how it is dawah( calling people to Islam) and jihaad are together.
Reply

noorahmad
11-21-2007, 08:04 PM
So Islam was spread by the sword. Thank you>>>wilberhum
if u convinced yurself, that islam was spread by the sword, no need to argue...
Reply

wilberhum
11-21-2007, 08:54 PM
Originally Posted by noorahmad
So Islam was spread by the sword. Thank you>>>wilberhum
if u convinced yurself, that islam was spread by the sword, no need to argue...
But it is nice to see that there are some Muslims that accept reality. :giggling:

But still there is the problem of defination. What does "spread by SWORD" mean?

Yes = 100% and No = 0%. Now IMHO anyone that clames either has no concept of reality. :hiding:

The truth has to come some where inbetween.
Reply

noorahmad
11-21-2007, 09:44 PM
i find nothin to say against that!!! lol!! i doznt 100&#37; agree tho
Reply

asadxyz
11-22-2007, 02:16 AM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
But it is nice to see that there are some Muslims that accept reality. :giggling:

But still there is the problem of defination. What does "spread by SWORD" mean?

Yes = 100% and No = 0%. Now IMHO anyone that clames either has no concept of reality. :hiding:

The truth has to come some where inbetween.
Peace;
Why don't you people use the brain ?
Today ,is there any sword which is spreading islam? Why is it still growing at a very fast spead in spite of all propaganda and world machinary against Islam ?
But anyway ,What can be expected from the group who thinks that "design is possible without a designer" ?
Reply

snakelegs
11-22-2007, 02:19 AM
Originally Posted by asadxyz
Peace;
Today ,is there any sword which is spreading islam?
no, but we have several members who are studying fencing, so the future may be brighter. ;D
Reply

al-muslimah
11-22-2007, 05:58 AM
Duh. How do you think Islam reached those places where Muslims are full and people revert daily it all atarted with JIHAD!!!!!!!!!!!!
Without jihad there is no Islam it is the pinnacle of this ummah and its siyaha..
Deal with it.
Reply

al-muslimah
11-22-2007, 06:00 AM
Wilberhumm-- what part of spread by the sword can't u understand?? A'uthubillah Atheists!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply

NoName55
11-22-2007, 06:07 AM
Originally Posted by al-muslimah
Duh. How do you think Islam reached those places where Muslims are full and people revert daily it all atarted with JIHAD!!!!!!!!!!!!
Without jihad there is no Islam it is the pinnacle of this ummah and its siyaha..
Deal with it.
hello "scholar"

usually I ask this of our non-Muslim members who are hell-bent on tarnishing the Image of my religion:

can you tell me the reason why there were more kuffaar in India at the end of our empire than at the beginning of it?
Reply

Umm Yoosuf
11-22-2007, 06:10 AM
Assalaamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatulaah,

Subhan Allaah!

Islaam did not start with Jihad it started with Tawheed. Calling people to the Creator, Allah.
Reply

asadxyz
11-22-2007, 06:22 AM
Originally Posted by al-muslimah
Duh. How do you think Islam reached those places where Muslims are full and people revert daily it all atarted with JIHAD!!!!!!!!!!!!
Without jihad there is no Islam it is the pinnacle of this ummah and its siyaha..
Deal with it.
:sl:
Can you please define "Jihaad" ? what do you mean by it?
:w:
Reply

Woodrow
11-22-2007, 06:42 AM
Originally Posted by al-muslimah
Duh. How do you think Islam reached those places where Muslims are full and people revert daily it all atarted with JIHAD!!!!!!!!!!!!
Without jihad there is no Islam it is the pinnacle of this ummah and its siyaha..
Deal with it.
How did Islam reach Indonesia, the country with the world's largest Muslim populations or here in the USA where it is the fastest growing religion?
Reply

Umm Yoosuf
11-22-2007, 06:54 AM
The Qur'aan has illustrated that the Messengers ('alayhim As-Salaatu was-Salaam) all began their missions by inviting the people to tawheed before anything else, as Allaah says:

( And We sent a messenger to every nation (proclaiming): 'Worship Allaah and shun false deities!' )

Allaah also says:

( And We never sent any messenger before you, except that we revealed to him that 'There is no deity worthy of worship except Me, so worship Me!' )
And every prophet used to say to his people:

( O my people - Worship Allaah as you have no other deity worthy of worship! )

So this was the affair of the messengers - they began with tawheed.

The Prophet (sallallaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) stayed in Makkah for 13 years calling to tawheed and warning against shirk.

Likewise the callers and revivalists who followed the messengers used to begin by focusing on tawheed. That is because every single da'wah that is not built upon tawheed is a fruitless call that does not fulfill its purpose, and there is no positive result to it. Every da'wah that does not focus on tawheed is a lost call, with regards to its end results. This is something well known and seen all over.

Thus Islaam is not spread by force (the sword) it is spread with beautiful wisdom, Hikmah.

I do not need to go into more details. I think the thread has many resourceful information in it. Read it. There is no need for futher discussions on this subject.

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: 59
    Last Post: 02-06-2007, 08:03 PM
  4. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-31-2006, 08:50 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-23-2006, 02:25 AM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!