Do you think the great success of Islam is because it was spread by the sword?

[cooterhein]

Re: Church of England Loses 14% of Members

My friend Islam did not spread through sword doesnt mean Muslims did not fight to conquer all those lands. It means they did not force people to convert to Islam by sword.

They did not force people of the book to convert by the sword....but they did force any other non-Muslim in exactly that way, if the Muslims were in a position to use force. So that means any pagan, any Zorastrian, any Yazidi, any Hindu or Buddhist....they were all fair game, especially if they were polytheists.

Non-Muslims just paid the jizyah and had the rights as Muslims.

Not all non-Muslims, that category is far too broad. The jizyah and the dhimmi status (which is worth fighting against all by itself) was specifically, and very exclusively, reserved for people of the book. For everyone else, it was a convert or die scenario- again, so long as the Muslims were in a powerful position and were able to use force in this way.

There were exactly zero polytheists who had the option of living under dhimmi status. And there were quite a lot of polytheists on the Arabian peninsula at one point in time. We all know what happened to those people, right? Keep in mind, none of them had the option of being dhimmis and paying the jizyah.

 

[anatolian]

Re: Church of England Loses 14% of Members

The embarrassing Khaliphates happened during the dynastic wars between competing Khaliphates... and that was a sign for the people of the time that they were about to be overtaken by an enemy they could not fight - Majuj. Hence the Mongols came... and in case you didn't know this, the Turks, are a genetic offshoot from the Turanian races, of which the Mong (Mongol) were also a genetic offshoot. The Turanians, in history are what we religious folk refer to Magog, or Majuj... the other half of Gog (Yajuj).

I know Turks are from the same offshoot with Mongols but this Yejuj-Mejuj analogy applied to many nations, Chineese people being the first candidates. If you ask me it has nothing to do with a specific nation on the Earth. Allah knows best and sure I can deal with you on this subject and I can even show you that Turks were chosen by Allah let alone being Yejuj or Majuj..There are signs for this in both Quran and Hadith..I will create another thread for that

 

[MuslimInshallah]

Assalaamu alaikum,

I moved the discussion of the spread of Islam here. Please keep it respectful.

JazakAllah khairan.

 

[anatolian]

Re: Church of England Loses 14% of Members

They did not force people of the book to convert by the sword....but they did force any other non-Muslim in exactly that way, if the Muslims were in a position to use force. So that means any pagan, any Zorastrian, any Yazidi, any Hindu or Buddhist....they were all fair game, especially if they were polytheists.

Not all non-Muslims, that category is far too broad. The jizyah and the dhimmi status (which is worth fighting against all by itself) was specifically, and very exclusively, reserved for people of the book. For everyone else, it was a convert or die scenario- again, so long as the Muslims were in a powerful position and were able to use force in this way.

There were exactly zero polytheists who had the option of living under dhimmi status. And there were quite a lot of polytheists on the Arabian peninsula at one point in time. We all know what happened to those people, right? Keep in mind, none of them had the option of being dhimmis and paying the jizyah.

Yes this happened sometimes but it is totally un-Islamic. Pagans are also under the dhimmitude.

 

[Serinity]

Re: Church of England Loses 14% of Members

They did not force people of the book to convert by the sword....but they did force any other non-Muslim in exactly that way, if the Muslims were in a position to use force. So that means any pagan, any Zorastrian, any Yazidi, any Hindu or Buddhist....they were all fair game, especially if they were polytheists.

Not all non-Muslims, that category is far too broad. The jizyah and the dhimmi status (which is worth fighting against all by itself) was specifically, and very exclusively, reserved for people of the book. For everyone else, it was a convert or die scenario- again, so long as the Muslims were in a powerful position and were able to use force in this way.

There were exactly zero polytheists who had the option of living under dhimmi status. And there were quite a lot of polytheists on the Arabian peninsula at one point in time. We all know what happened to those people, right? Keep in mind, none of them had the option of being dhimmis and paying the jizyah.

you are grossly mistaken. The dhimmi status is for anyone willing to pay for it. afaik.

A) Convert to Islam.
B) Pay Jizyaah
C) Fight.

These are the options given to every Non Islamic State. And Allah :swt: knows best.

I am grateful for the things Ottoman Empire did, although they did do some wrongs, but they succeeded in spreading the Deen. Afaik.

 

[cooterhein]

Re: Church of England Loses 14% of Members

Yes this happened sometimes but it is totally un-Islamic. Pagans are also under the dhimmitude.

According to the sources I've been made aware of (which is likely to either originate from or link up with Al-Wahidi's Asbab al-Nuzul), this is absolutely Islamic and proscribed as the precise strategy of how Islam was supposed to spread. Do you take issue with this specific source? It's my understanding that this is one of the most important Sunni commentaries out there, but I want to make sure it's an acceptable source for you.

Which pagans were under the dhimmitude, and when? Are you talking about something that happened during early Islamic history within the Gulf region, or are you talking about something in a different region that happened centuries later?

 

[Born_Believer]

The fact that the majority of India remained Hindu, even after centuries of muslim rule over most of that land, goes a long way to disproving this idea that Islam spread by the sword, or better put: "Islam only spread because you would get killed if you didn't convert".

A modern day proof is the rise of Islam in the western world, without any Muslim armies rampaging through the streets of those countries.

 

[Born_Believer]

Re: Church of England Loses 14% of Members

you are grossly mistaken. The dhimmi status is for anyone willing to pay for it. afaik.

A) Convert to Islam.
B) Pay Jizyaah
C) Fight.

These are the options given to every Non Islamic State. And Allah :swt: knows best.

I am grateful for the things Ottoman Empire did, although they did do some wrongs, but they succeeded in spreading the Deen. Afaik.

These types of answers sound quite ignorant. At times, even during the Muslim conquest of Sham under the sahabah, non-Muslims were pardoned the jizyah if they were unable to pay of the jizyah commanded of th emwas very little. In fact, once Khalid bin Walid RA conquered Bosra (I think that's how it is spelled), he let the largely Christian population choose their own governor, who inevitably was christian and the former governor, Romulus, who had converted to Islam, left bosra.

The idea that somehow non-Mulims would be killed if they were poor and unwilling to convert is nonsense.

What is even worse is that many Muslims are spreading this nonsense.

 

[Serinity]

Re: Church of England Loses 14% of Members

These types of answers sound quite ignorant. At times, even during the Muslim conquest of Sham under the sahabah, non-Muslims were pardoned the jizyah if they were unable to pay of the jizyah commanded of th emwas very little. In fact, once Khalid bin Walid RA conquered Bosra (I think that's how it is spelled), he let the largely Christian population choose their own governor, who inevitably was christian and the former governor, Romulus, who had converted to Islam, left bosra.

The idea that somehow non-Mulims would be killed if they were poor and unwilling to convert is nonsense.

What is even worse is that many Muslims are spreading this nonsense.

Sadly, I read a fatwa on ISlamqa.com that seems to push this "convert or die" thing. Not all fatwas there are consistent, either.

I basically read that peaceful ways are not the only way, that those who did not want to convert, had to be forced by sword.

https://islamqa.info/en/5441 - one example.

https://islamqa.info/en/43087 - second example.

I want your comments on these.
Allahu alam.

 

[M.I.A.]

..well, imo.. islam today is not spread by the sword literally..

so i dont think it was spead by the sword historically either.

although the literal sword is ever looming in some places.. most places have adopted the metaphorical sword of law.

and war is a constant.

when the dust settles in places such as iraq and syria.. and if we are lucky enough to still be around..

you can answer your own question.

 

[Scimitar]

If Islam was successful in Turkey, it would never have allowed itself to become secular.

A powerful leader chosen by the people would not allow Turkey to become secular.

But Turkey didn't have "powerful leaders" lol... they had muppet Kings, who passed the title of Khaliph down from father to son... that's a kingship. Hence the weakened generation of Kings were manipulated to eventually relent their position in the orient and become a monarchy which was eventually overthrown... and Islam in Turkey today? Absolute joke.

I was in Istanbul in the early 2000's and prayed Jummah in the Blue Mosque - ya know? The Most Famous Masjid in Turkey? The one all ya'll Turks make a big song and dance about? Yeah - THAT ONE.

So I'm praying Jummah, 2 rakah fardh behind the imam - soon as he is finished - he just gets up and walks off - so do all the other Muslims... not one stayed behind to finish the rest of the salaat (Sunnah rakats) except me. I was half way thru my rakat when a Turkish securty guard comes and takes me away, breaking my salah... I was angry that he broke my salah and I asked him why...

...his reply was just...

"Now it is time for tourists" - that's what he told me.

And what I saw next, defied explanation.

These non Muslim tourists were entering the masjid with THEIR SHOES ON... NO RESPECT.

Tell me again, why Turkey is so special?

Not to mention, spotting a bearded man in Turkey is like finding a needle in a haystack - sheesh. You nationalists are absolute fools.

Scimi

 

[Scimitar]

Islam spread to Turkey with the Sword - and so, today it is not successful as a Muslim nation - but it's hella successful as a "secular" one.

Define your bias again?

Scimi

 

[Serinity]

The sword was used against the disbelievers who prevented others to become Muslims. AFAIK. sounds logical.

logically If person A wanted to become Muslim, but Nation B threatened to kill person A, then the Muslims should defend person A by the sword. Right ?

Forced conversions is prohibited in Islam. Sometimes to maintain peace and order, one has to use Force, to keep the oppressors, criminals, and outlaws, at bay.

Look at the police. Why do they have guns? Why is there a military?

Allahu alam.

 

[Scimitar]

Forced conversions is prohibited in Islam. Sometimes to maintain peace and order, one has to use Force, to keep the oppressors, criminals, and outlaws, at bay.

salam Serenity,

Are you claiming that the Ottomans didn't forcefully convert Christians to Islam?

Do you know about the Janisseries?

What you NEED to do here, is ironically take the same medicine I'm telling Anatolian, and Islamirama to take - to learn HISTORY properly.

Just learning about the Janisseries will show you how the Ottomans were barbaric in many ways, totally ignorant of Islam in those very ways - or if not ignorant - then clearly they were being pragmatic in their need for "empire"... they stopped at nothing. Forcing non Muslim children to become slaves and accept Islam is now Islamic? Since when?

Go learn about the Janisseries.

I'm laughing sadly... simply because those who claim Turkey is this that and the other lol, are totally IGNORANT OF THEIR OWN HISTORY.

Scimi

 

[Serinity]

Have not read about the Janisseries.

I don't know much about the Ottomans, either.

 

[Scimitar]

The READ in sha Allah, you'll be surprised at how Muslims can sing their praises so ignorantly.

What you will discover will make you sick to the stomach.

Ottomans tearing Christian boys between the age of 6 and 14 away from their parents and enslaving them in the royal courts, educating them in Islam forcefully and making them forcefully deny their own inherited faith, then keeping them as slaves until retirement and settling their slavery with a monetary payment... sound familiar?

It should.

Guess what? THIS IS NOT ISLAM.

Remember - in Islam, there is no compulsion in religion. Yet the Ottomans must have turned a blind eye to that verse - a very blind eye. Dajjalic in fact.

Scimi

 

[Serinity]

The READ in sha Allah, you'll be surprised at how Muslims can sing their praises so ignorantly.

What you will discover will make you sick to the stomach.

Ottomans tearing Christian boys between the age of 6 and 14 away from their parents and enslaving them in the royal courts, educating them in Islam forcefully and making them forcefully deny their own inherited faith, then keeping them as slaves until retirement and settling their slavery with a monetary payment... sound familiar?

It should.

Guess what? THIS IS NOT ISLAM.

Remember - in Islam, there is no compulsion in religion. Yet the Ottomans must have turned a blind eye to that verse - a very blind eye. Dajjalic in fact.

Scimi

Yeah, I remember that. They let a hypocrite in there by forcing, who became the right hand of the Sultan.

Ahhh.......... Forceful conversions leads to hypocrisy, which inevitably, because of their Kingships of the sons becoming king, or whatever........ leads to secularism. not a very good strategy to having a stable Khalifah.

Why does it lead to secularism? Because the people forced, will want to take revenge, by working from inside out, making the dominion of the ottoman empire into a secular state.

by forcing people, the hypocrites, who got forced, will eventually take the power from the Sultan, when they die. And then transforming it into a Secular state.

Which prob let to their downfall. A hypothesis.

Right?

Allahu alam.

 

[Serinity]

I like your unbiased approach, [MENTION=31950]Scimitar[/MENTION].

After all, we should see both sides of a story, and then form our own view of it. Since when did Allah command us to just listen to one person, and take their words for truth?

Allahu alam.

 

[anatolian]

Re: Church of England Loses 14% of Members

According to the sources I've been made aware of (which is likely to either originate from or link up with Al-Wahidi's Asbab al-Nuzul), this is absolutely Islamic and proscribed as the precise strategy of how Islam was supposed to spread. Do you take issue with this specific source? It's my understanding that this is one of the most important Sunni commentaries out there, but I want to make sure it's an acceptable source for you.

Actually I didn't know anything about him before you mentioned his name. It seems he lived in the 11th c. I just don't think his works should be taken as primary source since Islam had already been spreaded widely until his time. At least it doesn't apply to the first 4 centuries of Islam.

Which pagans were under the dhimmitude, and when? Are you talking about something that happened during early Islamic history within the Gulf region, or are you talking about something in a different region that happened centuries later?

Dhimmi means the non-muslim who pays jizyah under an Islamic state. In fact when the "jizyah ayah" (9:29) revealed all pagans of Arabia had already converted to Islam. This ayah revealed after the conquest of Makkah. So there were only Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians over there to collect jizyah from and the Prophet a.s. collected jizyah from these people including Zoroastrians. It was only more than a hundred years when Muslims reached to India they encountered with Budists and Hindus and they commited the crimes you mentioned because of a misinterpretation of the Ayah. But later Scholars decided that it applies to all non-Muslims.

 

[Serinity]

Jazak Allahu Khairan bro Serenity

That is the nature of truth, there is never just one side to a story.

In a court of law, there is never only witnesses from one side.

We are a fair and thinking people.

But some here would have you think we as a people lack any brain power to deduce a method of investigation and are quick to claim "go learn history" when they themselves are so ignorant of the "historical process of investigation".

Such fools we have on this board, such ignorance.

Scimi

Yeah, I just remembered. When someone comes with something, one better investigate it. Otherwise we'd be thoughtless sheeples.

Otherwise, one may cause more harm than good, if one does not use the brain Allah gave us.

It is like trusting a layman or a person saying "man A stole from man B, cut his hands off!"... Should we trust this person, face value, and immediately cut the hands off the person??

Lol, that'd cause chaos.. There is a procedure.

Allahu alam.