How was Islam spread?? And ettiquettes of war. (questions)

Taking off your armour doesn't necessarily mean you want to die because there are pro's and con's to wearing armour like increased agility,movement and speed without armour.

format_quote Originally Posted by Blueflame

Taking off your armour doesn't necessarily mean you want to die because there are pro's and con's to wearing armour like increased agility,movement and speed without armour.

This was one of the reasons of the collapse of Byzantine empire. Turks were fighting without armours most of the time and this had given them much more flexity before the heavily armoured Byzantine soldiers.

For the "historical" record, guys, Islam did not spread by the sword.

I have a thread on this somewhere on this forum, where I have quoted non Muslim historians presenting the case for the spread of Islam - they attributed the spread of Islam down to the power of ideas, especially in how acceptable and natural our theology is - also they mentioned trade and commerce, and cementing foreign relations with other nations.

As for the case of Persia - If the Muslims had not stepped in, Rome and Persia would have mutually destroyed each other.

Both nations were already weak beyond repair and engaged in battles which would have seen them both wiped out.

If it wasn't for the Muslims taking Persia at the request of the Persians who were unhappy with their King, the Muslims would have left them alone. But can a Muslim deny help to one who asks for it? NO. And if in helping, an opoportunity presents itself to preach Islam in the process, then that is not conquest - but "re-quest".

This also facilitated the first peace treaty between Ar Rum and the Muslims. King Heracles presented a treaty to the Muslims and his Coptic Christians of Egypt which he, King Herod broke, the copts therefore despised their King Herod and kept the treaty anyeay - this facilitated the entry into Egypt for the Muslims and this is how North Africa was educated on Islam.

No conquest. Just opportunity.

Scimi

How did the Prophet manage to spread Islam so rapidly in the first stage of Islam? I know it is a blessing of Allah. But how did The Prophet Muhammad do it?

What are we doing wrong? The Kuffar have control of the media, etc. Do we lack Taqwa in Allah ? Should we pray and do more dhikr the harder it gets (in this life)?

you make me remember a lecture where brother Nouman Ali Khan said that, it wasn't the Sword that spread Islam, but it was Islam's ideas that provoked and shattered world nations that were doing Injustice. They feared Islam for its ground breaking ideas, etc.

It questioned all aspects of society.

So tell me then, how was Islam spread, how did Islam go into other territory? Was it because the people was willingly accepting it because of its natural message of Tawheed, which all humans want??

Originally posted by Uncle Woodrow:

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.

^ Uncle Woodrow posted this ^

Scimi

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.


Scimi

Any questions?

Scimi

Yes, I have questions. xD

How did Islam expand borders? From what I know, there was this tactic:

1) Convert to Islam,
2) pay Jizyah (and keep your religion) and be safe under Islamic State,
3) Fight.

Astaghfirullah if I said anything wrong. Correct me please if I did.
Allahu alam.

format_quote Originally Posted by Serinity

Yes, I have questions. xD

How did Islam expand borders? From what I know, there was this tactic:

1) Convert to Islam,
2) pay Jizyah (and keep your religion) and be safe under Islamic State,
3) Fight.

Astaghfirullah if I said anything wrong. Correct me please if I did.
Allahu alam.

Ok

Let's look at the example of the conquest of Persia - which I call the "Re-Quest of Persia" because the Persians had enough of their King Shah raising taxes to fund a war which was destroying his nation a little at a time - and by this point, the people had had enough of it. This was the first outing for Muslims away from Arabia with the intent to come to the aid of a people who were under tyrannical rule and this presented an ooportunity for Islam to be presented to the Persians.

A little background. Do you know what the longest running war in history was? It was the war between the Greco-Romans and the Persians. A war ongoing for millenia - thousands of years. And at this point, it was about to END.

So what happened next? Just take a look at my post above - post number 4. And do some research if you like, nothing beats a little digging around.

As for Jizya, bro why don't you read the post which I copied Uncle Woodrow's post?

Jizya is simply just a tax and it's much fairer to the non Muslims than what us Muslims have to pay in modern day in non Muslim nations as citizens of said state.

Non Muslims who paid Jizya were protected by Muslims and did not have to do army service because their Jizya was paid. No Muslim could harm a non Muslim who paid Jizya. Yet in the west, we Muslims are under all sorts of attack, even though we pay our taxes.

As for the FIGHT part of your post - bro, when push comes to shove, swords do get drawn - but the sword was never drawn in the name of "conquest". For defence and the protection of liberty life and rights, yes. But never for conquest. By Re-Quest, sure, because when a people under tyrannical rule want to be freed from oppressive regimes and look to Muslims to come to their aid - we aint turning up with rose petals and incense lol.

Scimi

How do we distinguish between Offensive Jihad and Defensive? is it that With offensive Jihad, that we are the "active" while in the defensive Jihad, we are the reactive?

Say, there is oppression somewhere, and we can see, if we do not invade, that this land will kill itself, we can invade such a land right? Is that called Offensive Jihad?

JazakAllah khayr, this is the last question^^ . Once I haad the misconception that Offensive Jihad was to invade without alarming, but now I learnt that, that isn't the case. Rather it is to respond to injustice??

Allahu alam.

format_quote Originally Posted by piXie

I am glad u seem to realise this brother scimitar

why?



Please do explain!!!

Scimi

format_quote Originally Posted by piXie

I am glad u seem to realise this brother scimitar

Still waiting lol

Something you want to say?

Scimi

stay in any place long enough..

and you will realise what to oppose.

people that make good days look bad and bad days look good.

...and name drop like your with family.

while they line there own pockets.



...dont really know how its spread.. but i suppose keeping put of peoples pockets is part of it.

kept men.

format_quote Originally Posted by aaj

deleted post

this is the joke. no offence..

but by the time you fight you have done all of your planning.

your hands have already put forth.

your people have already given you a view.

the greater Jihad and the lesser jihad.


...it is..

a learning experience.

brother Serenity,

I wrote the following post to you some months ago; I think it is still relevant today:

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad

It is better to focus our Islamic studies on the basics first, and the best thing is to have a structured study with a teacher. I've noticed you've made threads about Dhimmis, Jihad, apostates, and at the same time you've been having a problem with doubts. To avoid this problem, don't give ear to every person who starts talking about these issues, and don't read about them on the internet. Instead, focus on studying what will benefit you and strive to increase in your worship of Allaah . Ask any questions along the way to a teacher.

Learning to recite the Qur'an, memorising and studying it is something that will benefit you every single day of your life, fill your life with blessings and will raise your status in the Hereafter. Spending your time in the Masjid and in righteous company, in salah, du'a and dhikr will be cause of happiness on the Day of Judgement. All of this will strengthen you and push away doubts. Each of us will be asked how we have spent our time and youth, and those who have dedicated it to matters that will benefit will be successful. But delving into in-depth/confusing issues like kufr in the oath of allegiance etc. is harmful to yourself and best left to the people of knowledge. Unfortunately, many of the youth become confused because they are not giving proper attention where it is due and they lack a structure and guidance from a teacher in their approach to Islam. If you learn any course whether science or maths, they always start with basic principles and covering key topics before moving to the more advanced ones. The revelation of this deen itself was gradual, beginning with key issues before details of law were revealed. In that is a great lesson for us. This is an advice for me and you. : )

Just recently you made a post asking about proofs for Allaah 's existence. Today you are asking about etiquettes of war. I get the impression you are swinging from one doubt to another, and by doing so you are harming yourself. This is especially the case when those things that will strengthen your eemaan are being neglected, whilst hypothetical scenarios that you may never experience in your lifetime are being given undue attention. This is not only you, but a trend that seems to be popular on the internet and probably has affected us all. We spend too much time on issues that do not benefit us, yet we complain that we are stricken by doubt, low eemaan and desires. We have given too much attention to the anti-Islamic rhetoric parroted by non-Muslims so we busy ourselves with refutations at the expense of seeking knowledge. We have not worked on our relationship with Allaah , so we have little to keep us going when the times get tough.

By knowing Allaah and understanding the principles and values of Islam, all of these other issues will fall into place. Whether Islam was spread by the sword or it wasn't, ultimately it comes down to the same thing; we submit to our Creator and follow the guidance He has blessed us with. He Knows and we do not know. That is why it's so important to work on those core issues. That is also why we encourage people to use this forum for the basics only and in the event you need a fatwa, you need to go to a scholar. May Allaah grant us the ability to act on what we know and grant us success in the dunya and akhirah, Aameen!

https://sunnah.com/muslim/32/3

format_quote Originally Posted by Serinity

JazakAllah khayr, this is the last question^^ . Once I haad the misconception that Offensive Jihad was to invade without alarming, but now I learnt that, that isn't the case. Rather it is to respond to injustice??

Allahu alam.

When I look at the histories, I find nuances which get overlooked by most historians because they play to an imperial agenda. I've seen how offensive jihad was always a response to tyrannical rule or by a breaking of a treaty.

For the latter example, take a look at when Emperor Heracles made a treaty with the Muslims which the Muslims would observe with the Christian Copts of Egypt.

Emperor Heracles, broke the treaty, and this facilitated Muslims to enter Africa through Egypt and this is how Islam got its hand hold on North Africa. Did we invade? Nope. Instead - the Christian Emperor, Heracles of Rome, broke the treaty.

I've already given you the example of Persia and how Islam got a hand hold there, above.

Muslims today, shout CONQUEST with absolutely NO UNDERSTANDING of the dialectics, nuances and schisms which put claims of CONQUEST into the bin, where they belong.

Hope this helped,

Scimi