Was Islam spread by SWORD?

format_quote 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?

format_quote 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.

format_quote 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.

format_quote 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.

format_quote 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!

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al'Adl

format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou

format_quote 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

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)

format_quote 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?

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?

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

format_quote 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?

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al'Adl

format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou

format_quote 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.

Hello HeiGou,

format_quote 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.

format_quote 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?