Was Islam spread by SWORD?

Hello HeiGou

format_quote 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

format_quote 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.

format_quote 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.

format_quote 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.

format_quote 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

format_quote Originally Posted by ya_Giney

as american r doing NOW? how BRITAIN did in india, china an many many more countries!

Well I do not accept America is. But me apart, do you know anyone who denies it?

format_quote 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.

format_quote 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.

format_quote 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