Islam Spread By Sword

Salaams

Western propaganda perhaps? The sword was largely used to prevent oppression in worship. In my opinion it's all twisted history.

But I have to study it to know better.

format_quote Originally Posted by mr2299muslim

Hi guyz, i was wondering on this issue posed by non-muslims how islam spread far and wide specially in the ottoman empire due to the armed conflicts waged by muslims and unfair taxes like jizya and land tax making it increasingly difficult for them to stay non muslim and practice freely rheir religion, there lands were captured and their people killed and those that left payed jizya

The greatest spread was Eastward into the East and far East. They have no history of forceful conversion and of no mass migration, yet the majority of the world's Muslim live in those areas.

Some of the many misconceptions spread are often deliberately by the enemies of Islam.

Islam was never spread by the sword. This is a very persistent myth that continues to pop up. There is no historical record of this happening. It is true that under the Ottoman Empire may non-Muslim nations came under Rule of the Ottomans, but many people in those nations retained their traditional religion. Even Spain when under the Rule of Muslims kept a very large Catholic Majority.

Conversion by the sword is a tactic that has never worked for any religion. It is impossible to keep the populace from eventually revolting.

While Jizyah taxes ended over 100 years ago, in favor of a more simplified tax system, talk of it still is a common topic on Anti-Islamic sites.

What is unfair about Jizyah? It was often less that the Zakat paid by Muslims. Plus it was only collected from healthy, military fit males. In exchange they were exempt from military duty. This was not an additional taz. If they had desired they could have paid the higher Zakat and served in the military. but most chose to pay the lesser Jizyah and not serve in the military.

But it is a moot point. In response to public opinion non-Muslims now pay the same (Higher) tax paid by Muslims and are obligated to serve in the military.

History does not support the myth of "Islam Spread by the Sword"

Look at Lithuania and Poland and the role of the Lipkas (My ancestors) The Lipkas were invited in to protect them from invading Christians. Although the Lipkas did become "Royalty" and the premier military, at no time did they "Rule" the "Grand Duchy of Poland-Lithuania" and very few Poles & Lits converted to Islam. The story changed fast during the Crusades of the North and the entire populace of Lithuania and Poland were forced into Christianity. That was conversion by the sword.

The dishonorable rise of Christianity in Poland and Lithuania--HERE

A brief History of the Lipkas in Lithuania--HERE

No evidence they came into Poland and Lithuania to "Spread Islam by the Sword"

Today about 300 years later, the Lipkas are returning to Islam. Conquest by the sword failed, as it always fails.

Tatars returning to their homelands in Lithuania and Poland---See HERE

A good reply to those claiming Islam was spread by the sword is to ask them to provide Historiacl evidence it was.

As for the Jizya tax a similar reply is to ask for proof it was unjust and different from the Tax Muslims had to pay.

Famous 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 roads” (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.”


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.


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.


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.


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?”


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?”


Famous Historian, 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.”


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 Quran says in the following verse:


“Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error”
[Quran 2:256]

Syrian archaeological dig reveals myth of Islam spreading by the sword


by Mike Addelman
Source: The University of Manchester





An archaeologist working in Syria has solved the mystery of why one of Islam’s earliest fortresses dropped out of the historical record around 1,100 years ago.


Senior Lecturer Dr Emma Loosley from The University of Manchester was one of an international team of experts invited into the world-renowned Khanuqa Gap by the Syrian Department of Antiquities before its secrets – and 11,000 years of human history – may be lost to a controversial dam project.


Dr Loosley, who has been unable to return to Syria because of the current conflict, found that 1,100 years ago a fire raged through what was regarded as an impregnable fortress.


Her work has also helped show that, contrary to popular understanding, the earliest Muslim expansion across the Middle East was largely peaceful and typified by coexistence with Christians.


Like Jerusalem’s Dome of the Rock, the citadel – called Zalabiyeh – was one of the first buildings to be inhabited by Muslims as they spread across the Syrian desert.


It was constructed during the Byzantine Empire before being renovated under the Umayyad Dynasty during Islam’s first period of expansion from Mecca in the early seventh century.


The first of four Arab caliphates following the death of Muhammed, the Umayyad dynasty left Mecca to establish one of the largest empires the world had yet seen.


Zalabiyeh, its sister citadel Halabiyeh and dozens of other crucially important sites may be flooded as part of a major HEP project.


Dr Loosley’s undergraduate student Joshua Bryant, who worked with her, was able to date the citadel to c.500 AD by analysing the way its walls were constructed.


He received a University award for his dissertation which he hopes to publish in a journal – a rare feat for an undergraduate.


Dr Loosley excavated burned beams and roof tiles – alongside other finds -including a fully functioning barracks, a human tooth, copper belt buckle, plaster spinning wheel, fragments of an alabaster mirror, and painted wall plaster.


She also found some ovens still crammed with charred chicken bones and ash.


The evidence points to a fire which forced the soldiers to leave but also a peaceful takeover of the previously Byzantine controlled citadel by Umayyad soldiers.


The artefacts are in Syria awaiting further analysis by Dr Loosley once – or if – she is able to return.


She said: “There is little evidence of any violence in the years before the citadel burned down, but there is intriguingly so much more to learn.


“We don’t even know if the soldiers who took over control from the Byzantines were Muslims or Christians even though they were subjects of the Umayadd caliph.


“Coexistence typified those times: some even argue that one reason why so many Christians converted to Islam is because the major sources of tension and conflict were between Christian factions themselves.”

She added: “The Khanuqa Gap is a major crossing point on the River Euphrates and so has been politically, economically and socially important to human beings for 11,000 years.


“It contains evidence of continuous human settlement through many civilisations including Assyrian, Roman, Arab – an astonishing area to work in and one of the most important in the world.


“So our work to understand as much as we can before it disappears is hugely important and I hope to be able go back as soon as it is safe to do so.”


The work was funded by the British Academy and the Osmane Aidi foundation.


A version of Dr Loosley’s book, Christian Responses to Islam and Muslim-Christian Relations in the Modern World, edited with Anthony O’Mahony is published by Manchester University Press in January 2012.


___ ___ ___


Interesting stuff,


Scimi

Muslims are not free from 'tax.' They have to pay zakat, tax on harvest, etc. etc. so it's not true that nonmuslims were forced to convert to save themselves from jizya and other taxes. Because after conversion they would still have to pay the types of 'taxes' that Muslims have to pay. Thus, that point is wrong. As for Islam spreading by the sword, it is not true because while battles were waged, noone forced any nonmuslim to convert. No one put a sword to a nonmuslim's throat and said to him 'convert or die.' So that point is not true. The truth is that while Muslims conquered lands and ruled over the people, the public was left to remain on whtever religion it was following. but seeing the beautiful and honorable behavior of the Muslims impressed the nonmuslims so much that they themselves became muslims. At times it wasn't even the result of dawah because a lot of muslims didn't know the language of the people. Most people became Muslim when they observed the behavior of the Muslims.

Muslim conquests are known as fatuhaat in arabic which means 'opening.' This is because the muslims never harmed or destroyed the lands they conquered. Instead they opened the areas to major developments. Following muslim conquests, the conquered areas developed in education, sciences, and infrastructure through the works of the muslim rulers.

The greatest thing to happen to the world is Muslim conquests. It brought the world out of darkness. On the other hand, look at what the wars by nonmuslims have done to the world. Even now you can see what is happening in Iraq following US invasion. The place is a mess and getting worse and worse. No such example can be given of an area conquered by Muslims of the past.

A reason why Muslim battles didn't destroy the conquered lands is that the battles were always fought in the battlefield and never in residential areas. Thus, all other areas in the land were safe and all other people were safe. Only those in the battlefield were affected by the wars. Once the Muslims became victorious, battles stopped and no one in the country was harmed. The Muslims ruled the area with justice and brought enlightenment to the whole place but didn't destroy the place.

This isn't how nonmuslims fight wars. Nonmuslims do not limit their battles to the battlefield. They proceed to plunder and rampage the whole land, killing, raping, looting, etc. etc. When a nonmuslim army would become victorious, the whole conquered land would get destroyed and its riches stolen. When France conquered Egypt, the Egyptian currency fell and became useless because France stole all the gold from the central bank!

format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis

The reason Iraq is a mess is because of the Muslim Shiite / Sunni divide and Islamic fundamentalism.

So why was it not like that when Saddam Hussein was in charge???

Also as previous posts, they went into more detail on specific conflicts on why Muslims did and never spread by the sword-so what you need to do is to use an example of a conflict of a few and then show why Muslims were involved in a conflict, so starting from the first few conflicts need to has a historian would show why both parties fought. But you probably find is that it is the Muslims who have kept records of the conflicts, and all that the non-Muslims are doing is using these very sources and saying the Muslims were in the wrong, when they have no other source.

Also were is your information on what is happening in Syria?? I certainly wouldn't believe people who have been bombing Yemen, Somolia, Pakistan WITHOUT the public's knowledge until well after they had done so.

Why believe people who say they have dumped Osama Bin Laden in the ocean??

Just because you don't like one side, that doesn't mean you can't use sense. If you support your politicians, remember that if World War Three starts, and lets see if your support for the politicians waivers.

I have read on conspiracy theories, news reports, and I will just say that you can't tell what is happening, unless you go there yourself. On another fact is that having read on a number of crimes, why is it that they can claim to find out who has done such and such in Iraq, when they can't even find out who have murdered people in their own countries?? Recently we had the Alps murders, where its been mentioned that its unlikely they will be able to find the culprit on the 05/09/12.

If their intelligence is so true, then they should have no trouble in finding out who is responsible for the;-

1. Zodiac murders in the US,
2. Where are the Beaumont children that disappeared in Australia in 1966?
3. Why were there not any justice in the "family murders" in Australia 1970s-1983??
4. Who was responsible for Black Dahlia murder in the US???