Was Islam spread by SWORD?

Guy's did Islam really spread by ther sword?

what do you mean by its sword?

take care

I mean by the sword!

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.

But islamis the most quickest growing religion in the world so that means people are willing to accept it without force.

format_quote Originally Posted by Abd'Majid

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 .

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

OK! since you said it so nicely I take your word for it!

format_quote 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'

format_quote 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.

Very interesting. Barak-Allahu feekum.

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.

Don't the sword mean the word from Allah?

In Malaysia

By trade - Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam

By sword - Christianity.