Was Islam spread by SWORD?

[ISDhillon]

A person is not a disbeliever because their forefathers were 'forced' into a religion.

true but the fear that their children will know that their ancestors were cowards who embraced islam rather than death will not allow for the truth to ever come out.

Lets say that if you're forefathers were hindus, then you must be a hindu also?

my ancestors were muslims but they WILLINGLY took amrit and became sikhs they were not compelled to do so

The same way the muslims forefathers may have been 'forced' to accept islam, but that does not mean that the muslims in the world right now are muslims due to that - but they must have stuck to islam because that is their way of life and they prefer it that way.

true but in some muslim countries their is a closed system where people will go for asylum in other countries rather than live in islamic state cos if they renounce islam in islamic state then 2 things gonna happen, they will get killed for apostasy and then muslims in the west will say in years to come "obviously the state was not being ruled according to islamic principles", but no-one will ever correct the problem with the present. I agree though that their are muslims today who love islam even though their ancestors were forced thats cool, its just i dont like it when people deny that it happened people are looking through rose-tinted glasses and it wernt like that at the time.

Remember that india is not an islamic state, so they won't get the death penaltly for apostasy, yet still - they are sticking to islam because they choose to.

true

Allaah Almighty knows best.

true


thanks

INDY

 

[ISDhillon]

no mate that depends on a person! i would NEVER do anything even if you held a gun to my head, especially change my religion BECAUSE I AINT THAT WEAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then your not like your ancestors cos they sold their souls in fear of death

indy

 

[- Qatada -]

I believe that islam was spread with calling to tawheed and it's call was protected by the sword.

We believe that the whole world belongs to Allaah, and therefore it should all be under the rule of Allaah (which is the islamic law from the Qur'an and Sunnah.)


Even the sahabah (companions) of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) gave the enemies one of three options:


1) Accept Islam

2) Pay Jizya (a small tax)

3) The sword.


If the enemy never accepted islam, then they would have the option to pay the tax [this tax would be used to support the needy and also the government, the same way zakaah (tax from the muslims) is used to help the needy.]

If they never wanted to accept rules 1 or 2, the muslims would fight them [the government] until the nation was under islamic law and the non muslims pay the jizya, then the blood and honor of the people (including the non muslims) within that nation is sacred to the believers. And it is the duty of the muslim army to fight against any attacks that come from the outside [this includes protecting the non muslims within the muslim nation too.]


Once the government is under islamic law, the non muslims have a right still to follow their own religion according to their own law (i.e. the bible or torah etc.) as long as they pay the jizya, and they can come to learn about islam from the masjids and the government any time they wish.


----

I've heard the above from the life of 'Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) in a lecture by imaam anwar al-awlaki.

Which you can download from here insha'Allaah (God willing):
http://lectures.kalamullah.com



Allaah Almighty knows best.



Peace.

 

[ISDhillon]

I believe that islam was spread with calling to tawheed and it's call was protected by the sword.

well that clears things up

We believe that the whole world belongs to Allaah, and therefore it should all be under the rule of Allaah (which is the islamic law from the Qur'an and Sunnah.)

the world belonging to allah agreed, the world coming under sunnah is a totalitarian creed and i am vehemently opposed.

Even the sahabah (companions) of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) gave the enemies one of three options:


1) Accept Islam

2) Pay Jizya (a small tax)

3) The sword.

prefer option 3

If the enemy never accepted islam, then they would have the option to pay the tax [this tax would be used to support the needy and also the government, the same way zakaah (tax from the muslims) is used to help the needy.]

that is the ideal but history shows this did not go to plan.

If they never wanted to accept rules 1 or 2, the muslims would fight them [the government] until the nation was under islamic law and the non muslims pay the jizya,

did they have an option in place when they were defeated by the sword themselves?

then the blood and honor of the people (including the non muslims) within that nation is sacred to the believers. And it is the duty of the muslim army to fight against any attacks that come from the outside [this includes protecting the non muslims within the muslim nation too.]

that would be the ideal but as we know it was not the case in fact islam was used as a weapon against the non-believers even children, when they do such things to children and prescribed by islamic law, then do you think they could care less about women and adults of the non-believers:

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php?title=Sahibzada_Zorawar_Singh

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php?title=Fateh_Singh

Once the government is under islamic law, the non muslims have a right still to follow their own religion according to their own law (i.e. the bible or torah etc.) as long as they pay the jizya, and they can come to learn about islam from the masjids and the government any time they wish.

i prefer secularism. But if this is the way it was supposed to be then mughal rule was way off tangent from islam.

no offence,

indy:thankyou:

 

[- Qatada -]

Hey.


Your points regarding the mughals etc. doesn't really hold much strength due to the fact that we don't hold our islam through what others did. Yeah they were muslims, but who actually said that they followed the islamic law in every action that they did and who said that we have to follow their example?

It's so simple to label a whole group of people under one label, just because some members of that group did an act. For instance, people could say that all white people support the war in iraq, when only a few may have agreed with it. Therefore - these kind of arguments don't really hold any strength.


Anyway, like i mentioned before - islam is based on the Qur'an and the way of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) and his companions (may Allaah be pleased with them.) And these companions were the ones who implemented the law justly and allowed others to follow their own religion and never forced anyone to accept islam.


Our beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) said:

"The tribes of Israel broke into seventy- two sects. My Ummah shall break up into seventy-three sects. All of them will be in the Fire, except one: what I am upon and my Companions." [At-Tirmidhee]​

You notice from that hadith that our beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) doesn't mention the mughals, or the turks or some pakistani - but instead, he (peace be upon him) mentions the way of him (peace be upon him) and his companions (may Allaah be pleased with them) only. And i think you should take note of that, and we shouldn't always judge a whole group, just because someone else did it under the same title.


Also realise that Allaah Almighty says in the Qur'an:

"So if they believe in the like of that which you believe, they are rightly guided, but if they turn away, then they are only in opposition. So Allah will suffice you against them. And He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower." [2:137]​

So we're only rightly guided if we follow the way of Allaah's messenger (peace be upon him) and if we don't follow that way, we're in the opposition. So you can't use these people i.e. to use them as representatives for islam., but instead - refer to the messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) and his companions (may Allaah be pleased with them.)



Allaah Almighty knows best.



Peace.

 

[avk]

Brother I reject the fact that islam was spread by force (let me say not by sword because If I say by sword its an ambigous figure of speech)

Allah knows best , when the prophet SAW sent messages to the kings of Persia and Egypt they did not accept islam but there is a difference on how they do not accept it.

First if the ruler was a tyrant then force will be opposed however, if the ruler commences on allowing muslims inside for teaching islamic foundation there is no obligation to fight since islam is being taught inside.

Now History does not offer explicit rules for taking over the non muslim land, since each scenario can be played differently. When Muslims went inside Belad al Sham led by Abu Baker they entered because a tyrant who used to pay people of Palestine for support cutt off their supplies of money and did not give the right for people of the book to practice their religion freely. Same Applies with Spain when Jews asked muslims to free them from the system. Anyway there is no strict policy as to how and when to attack a non muslim country , as long as you have a way of sending the message of islam then the fight should be avoided as the prophet SAW said in one of his hadeeth that avoidance of battle is always recommended.

In summary , to say islam was spread by the sword we have to continue this phrase and say "islam was spread by the sword to give the right for choosing your religion"

Allah knows best

 

[ISDhillon]

"Your points regarding the mughals etc. doesn't really hold much strength due to the fact that we don't hold our islam through what others did."

thats great but i dont see how this statement will offer anything new to this discussion, as far as i am concerned i have no intention of taking away your strength i just want it to be known that islam was spread by barbarians whether this weakens you is not my concern.

Yeah they were muslims, but who actually said that they followed the islamic law in every action that they did and who said that we have to follow their example?

thats great but again I have stated already that merely denying they were true muslims does not and will not ever take away responsibility from muslim people that allowed it to happen. people dont stop short of calliing america war a crusade so we wont stop short of calling this muslim barbarity.

It's so simple to label a whole group of people under one label, just because some members of that group did an act. For instance, people could say that all white people support the war in iraq, when only a few may have agreed with it. Therefore - these kind of arguments don't really hold any strength.

answered above

So you can't use these people i.e. to use them as representatives for islam., but instead - refer to the messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) and his companions (may Allaah be pleased with them.)

the problem with this is you could sit back whilst more atrocities in the name of islam occur and keep saying "there not muslims", if you dont do something to stop the tyranny then your religion has to share some of the blame, and we say it is god in his mercy who created a new religion because the old ones became impotent to the suffering in the world.

Have a nice day:thankyou:

indy

 

[ISDhillon]

Now History does not offer explicit rules for taking over the non muslim land, since each scenario can be played differently. When Muslims went inside Belad al Sham led by Abu Baker they entered because a tyrant who used to pay people of Palestine for support cutt off their supplies of money and did not give the right for people of the book to practice their religion freely. Same Applies with Spain when Jews asked muslims to free them from the system. Anyway there is no strict policy as to how and when to attack a non muslim country , as long as you have a way of sending the message of islam then the fight should be avoided as the prophet SAW said in one of his hadeeth that avoidance of battle is always recommended.

nobody asked or needed the muslims to invade india they did however and eventually they were booted out with the same ferocity, islam whilst being taught to the indians was also changed by the indians, the islam being practiced in india today is praying to graves of pirs i suggest that the invasion technique does not make gods word supreme just distorted.

In summary , to say islam was spread by the sword we have to continue this phrase and say "islam was spread by the sword to give the right for choosing your religion"

a contradiction engineered to absolve islam of any misconduct but it won't rub off on me.



Have a nice day

indy

 

[bint_muhammed]

Then your not like your ancestors cos they sold their souls in fear of death

indy

and also aint Indian, back in history i believe that my ancestors were Jewish, but i am not sure if this is true.

 

[avk]

Well If your rejecting the muslim army coming inside India (Which I beleive came later from the time of Khalifa golden age) then your simply taking away the right of some indians to choose to either be muslims or not. Because as we know it in Indonedia and Malaysia force was not taken into consideration since dawa (invitation ) of islam was presented there visually and through discussion.In general I may have went off-topic but im discussing the islamic wars in general and not specifying on India. As for the different sects of Islam in India they are simple inovation created by the Indians themselves but I dont see how is this related to the topic islam and sword spread

Allah is the best who knows.

 

[HeiGou]

and also aint Indian, back in history i believe that my ancestors were Jewish, but i am not sure if this is true.

It is well known that some Muslim communities in India are made up of converts who usually insist they originally came from Arabia or Persia. Bangladesh for instance. I assume you are claiming to be a Pathan? At one time Pathans were pagan too. Buddhists even. Not any more.

 

[HeiGou]

Well If your rejecting the muslim army coming inside India (Which I beleive came later from the time of Khalifa golden age) then your simply taking away the right of some indians to choose to either be muslims or not.

The evidence that Hindus treated Muslim kindly is overwhelming - both before and after the Muslims invaded Northern India. Virtually all Muslim visitors to India mention it. There were no impediments to Muslims visiting, preaching in or trading with India, before the Muslim invasion.

Because as we know it in Indonedia and Malaysia force was not taken into consideration since dawa (invitation ) of islam was presented there visually and through discussion.

That is not true either. Islam certainly arrived peacefully through merchants, as it did in India, but once those merchants converted rulers or set up their own states, they waged war on the Buddhists and destroyed them all. If not for the Europeans they would have destroyed Bali too.

In general I may have went off-topic but im discussing the islamic wars in general and not specifying on India. As for the different sects of Islam in India they are simple inovation created by the Indians themselves but I dont see how is this related to the topic islam and sword spread

Well let me steer clear of sectarian issues, but one of the advantages of tolerant societies is that they let a range of ideas exist. India is not only a great exporter of religious ideas, it is a great shelter for the heretical. India has protected Christians destroyed elsewhere, Parsi rapidly disappearing from their homeland, Jews, and a range of other minority religions. Because the Hindus were so tolerant.

 

[ISDhillon]

Well let me steer clear of sectarian issues, but one of the advantages of tolerant societies is that they let a range of ideas exist. India is not only a great exporter of religious ideas, it is a great shelter for the heretical. India has protected Christians destroyed elsewhere, Parsi rapidly disappearing from their homeland, Jews, and a range of other minority religions. Because the Hindus were so tolerant

i hate to interrupt but i feel my conscience will not allow me to stay quiet on this issue, india has a grave humans rights abuses record too obviously not as bad as moghuls but they are not free from criticism, i am talking about modern indian government, but yes in comparison they are not as bad. things are getting better now in india but they too had their heydey

 

[bint_muhammed]

It is well known that some Muslim communities in India are made up of converts who usually insist they originally came from Arabia or Persia. Bangladesh for instance. I assume you are claiming to be a Pathan? At one time Pathans were pagan too. Buddhists even. Not any more.

yeah i am pathan how do you know? is coz i said that peole claim we came from ajewish tribe or is it you understand pushtu?

 

[ISDhillon]

yeah i am pathan how do you know? is coz i said that peole claim we came from ajewish tribe or is it you understand pushtu?

well it was the pathans who failed to prevent the onslaught of invaders from the nwfp in the first place, and when the sikhs started to attack the looters the pathans sided with us and then stabbed us in the back later on cos they wanted all the glory, so you must share some of the blame.

 

[- Qatada -]

ISDhillon, why do you blame a nation by its past or by what other people did? If you're a sikh - anyone can use some people from your faith group who may have done some sort of negative act in history and say that all sikhs are like that.

Be careful of what you say.


Peace.

 

[ISDhillon]

ISDhillon, why do you blame a nation by its past or by what other people did? If you're a sikh - anyone can use some people from your faith group who may have done some sort of negative act in history and say that all sikhs are like that.

Be careful of what you say.


Peace.

I am willing to accept the faults of our people, you are unwilling to accept yours, so i suggest you watch your own mouth.

ISDhillon

 

[bint_muhammed]

well it was the pathans who failed to prevent the onslaught of invaders from the nwfp in the first place, and when the sikhs started to attack the looters the pathans sided with us and then stabbed us in the back later on cos they wanted all the glory, so you must share some of the blame.

EXCUSE ME! i dont know what ya on bout this is first time i heard this! you sure you aint talking rubbish!:happy:

 

[Skillganon]

Who care's pathan or sikh, if they did something wrong than they did something wrong, and I doubt it came from their religiouse teaching unless they where truly ignorant.

 

[Mohsin]

I am willing to accept the faults of our people, you are unwilling to accept yours, so i suggest you watch your own mouth.

ISDhillon

Nice manners bro, i see you've improved on your skills in speaking to other people ;D