Was Islam spread by the sword?

[paarsurrey]

You are saying that because your reformative version of Islam is spreading in a peaceful fashion, the original version of Islam 1,500 years ago also spread in a peaceful way. I am saying that this doesn't follow at all. By your own admission, Ahmadiyya is a reformation. It is not how Islam was practiced in its original form. Let alone the cultural changes. So there is no connection between how your particular strain of Islam is spreading to how it spread originally. They have almost nothing to do with each other. And your argument is invalid.

Now I get it. Your argument was totally wrong, please don't mind .
You must not have read my post #2854 in this thread. Please read it and then you would now that in my case it was a valid and reasonable argument, while yours was incorrect.
Right?
Regards

 

[outhouse]

We are talking about the origins of islam.

Could you address the OP , not make up your own rhetoric?

STAY on topic

Séléka CPSK-CPJP-UFDR is an alliance of rebel militia factions[1] that overthrew the Central African Republic (CAR) government on March 24, 2013.[2][3][4] Séléka leader Michel Djotodia became the nation's president from March 2013 until his resignation in January 2014.[5][6] Members of Séléka are almost entirely Muslim.[7][8][9][10]


Islam being spread by BLOOD and GUTS

“What’s worse is that the Seleka have recruited children as young as 13 to carry out some of this carnage.”

 

[Tumah]

Now I get it. Your argument was totally wrong, please don't mind .
You must not have read my post #2854 in this thread. Please read it and then you would now that in my case it was a valid and reasonable argument, while yours was incorrect.
Right?
Regards

I think you meant to link a different post. That post had nothing to do with what we're talking about.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I do have for sure.

Then what is your response?

But you can try yourself to understand from the context verses. It is easy, not difficult to understand for an intelligent person like you. Please ponder intently on the verses.
Meanwhile, you would be pleased to provide the list. Please
Regards

The context is that in a number of situations, Muhammed intended to use force to spread Islam, and did so, in an offensive capacity. In order to convince his followers he had to create new Quran verses ad hoc to justify his goals. Let me give you the list you really need:

Things which are offensive - not defensive - actions

1. Raiding the trade caravans of a city that is not attacking you;
2. Attacking the city of Ta'if with catapults;
3. Marching to and attacking Ta'if's army in the field;
4. Refusing to accept Ta'if's surrender unless they convert to Islam;
5. Muhammed marching his army from city to city and offering them conversion or death;
6. Invading Mecca and supplanting its gods with one's own;
7. Invading the Byzantine Empire;
8. Invading the Sassanid Empire;
9. Invading & conquering the Berbers.

Even only one of these points refutes your claim that Islam did not spread by violence.

If you have any difficult with this list, be sure to let me know.

 

[paarsurrey]

Then what is your response?
The context is that in a number of situations, Muhammed intended to use force to spread Islam, and did so, in an offensive capacity. In order to convince his followers he had to create new Quran verses ad hoc to justify his goals. Let me give you the list you really need:
Things which are offensive - not defensive - actions

1. Raiding the trade caravans of a city that is not attacking you;
2. Attacking the city of Ta'if with catapults;
3. Marching to and attacking Ta'if's army in the field;
4. Refusing to accept Ta'if's surrender unless they convert to Islam;
5. Muhammed marching his army from city to city and offering them conversion or death;
6. Invading Mecca and supplanting its gods with one's own;
7. Invading the Byzantine Empire;
8. Invading the Sassanid Empire;
9. Invading & conquering the Berbers.

Even only one of these points refutes your claim that Islam did not spread by violence.
If you have any difficult with this list, be sure to let me know.

Sorry, you get me entirely wrong. I meant the context of the verse quoted by you. The Immediate Context of a Quranic verse, since Quran is an amazing Recitation of systems, usually consists of some preceding verses and some following verses, the Short Context of a Quranic verse is the whole chapter where the verse is located; and the Long Context of a Quranic verse is the whole Recitation itself. So that humans could ponder intently on its contents and enrich one's faculties to the full . Quran promotes one's intelligence and opens one's mind to the realities.
I think I illustrated the first one (the Immediate Context) in one of my posts. Let me check its number , please.
Regards

P.S.
Before reading the Recitation one has to take refuge in God from the Satan this is one important aspect that helps one to be unbiased while reading the Recitation.

 

[gnostic]

By your own admission, Ahmadiyya is a reformation. It is not how Islam was practiced in its original form. Let alone the cultural changes. So there is no connection between how your particular strain of Islam is spreading to how it spread originally. They have almost nothing to do with each other. And your argument is invalid.

Especially, in Islam's original form, Muhammad never taught anything like Hinduism.

Mirza had mixed Islam with Indian religion (as well as Zoroastrianism), making hybrid religion.

Islam was already hybrid of Judaism, Christianity, and pre-Islamic polytheistic Arabic religion. With Mirza including Hinduism to Islam, it is actually understandable why many Sunni Muslims don't see Ahmadiyya as Islam, let alone "True Islam".

And considering what Muhammad did during his days of prophethood, Muhammad got involved in politics and war, robbery and slavery, Mirza is nothing like Muhammad in that respect.

What Muhammad and Mirza have in common, is they have a very high opinions of themselves and they perverted several religions to make new religions.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Sorry, you get me entirely wrong. I meant the context of the verse quoted by you. The of a Quranic verse, since Quran is an amazing Recitation of systems, usually consists of some preceding verses and some following verses, the Short Context of a Quranic verse is the whole chapter where the verse is located; and the Long Context of a Quranic verse is the whole Recitation itself.

I understood what you meant when you asked me to check the context. But frankly, the verses preceding and following the ones I quoted do not change the fact that the verses I quoted justify (even outright demand) offensive war against non-Muslims with the express purpose of spreading Islam.

It's strange (and I hope both you and those who disagree with you will note) that whenever Quran verses calling for violence are highlighted, there's always a demand to inspect the verses' context. But this same argument is never applied when one quotes the verses which advocate religious freedom & toleration, the verses that advocate respecting the rights of non-Muslims to believe as they so wish. The same verses that Muhammed himself ignored on more than one occasion. And why is that? Context.

Let me give you an example:

Quran 5:32; the verse which is often quoted as saying "If anyone slew a person it would be as if he slew all of mankind" is not from the Quran. It's lifted directly from rabbinical commentary in the Talmud.

"On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person - unless it be in retaliation for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew all mankind: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all humanity. "

Quran promotes one's intelligence and open one's mind to the realities.

Memorising and mindlessly reciting a book like a machine does not seem to me the best way to open one's mind. And if your inability to argue coherently & accept dissenting views (and associated evidence) is anything to go by on opening one's mind to reality - then my point is solidly proven.

P.S.
Before reading the Recitation one has to take refuge in God from the Satan this is one important aspect that helps one to be unbiased while reading the Recitation.

So in other words one has to accept the Quran is true before one reads it. This would result in a person's impartiality being compromised, and in engaging in confirmation bias.

 

[Tumah]

Especially, in Islam's original form, Muhammad never taught anything like Hinduism.

Mirza had mixed Islam with Indian religion (as well as Zoroastrianism), making hybrid religion.

Islam was already hybrid of Judaism, Christianity, and pre-Islamic polytheistic Arabic religion. With Mirza including Hinduism to Islam, it is actually understandable why many Sunni Muslims don't see Ahmadiyya as Islam, let alone "True Islam".

And considering what Muhammad did during his days of prophethood, Muhammad got involved in politics and war, robbery and slavery, Mirza is nothing like Muhammad in that respect.

What Muhammad and Mirza have in common, is they have a very high opinions of themselves and they perverted several religions to make new religions.

If I could, I would give you an extra frubal for taking the time to learn what they have to say before commenting.

 

[gnostic]

Quran promotes one's intelligence and opens one's mind to the realities.

Memorising and mindlessly reciting a book like a machine does not seem to me the best way to open one's mind. And if your inability to argue coherently & accept dissenting views (and associated evidence) is anything to go by on opening one's mind to reality - then my point is solidly proven.

The problem with many Muslims today, is that they are so fixated with the Qur'an or Islamic teachings is they don't bother to check sources that pre-dated Muhammad's teaching and the Qur'an.

And you're right, Scotman. I haven't seen paarsurrey being "open-minded" like he ask you to do.

 

[paarsurrey]

Mestemia said: ↑
In Post #2682
What does the Koran say about cars?
What does the Koran say about cloning?
What does the Koran say about medicine?
other than camel urine is a magical cure all...
paarsurrey said: ↑
Are you against animals? Camel is an innocent animal. Isn't it? Please

Paarsurrey says:
This innocent animal (camel) which was called the ship of desert in Arabia, was to be a sign as mentioned in Quran in Post #2833:
In this context the prophecy of the she-camels being abandoned can evidently be understood to mean that better, faster and more powerful means of transport will have been invented. I quoted an Hadith for which one could like to refresh oneself by reading Post #2854.

Quran and Hadith clearly hint that in the time of the Jesus' (Second Coming) , she-camel will be abandoned.
This happened in the nineteenth century when with the development of the modern vehicles, like Railway Trains and later Cars, Buses, Trucks plied on the roads instead of the camels.
Yes indeed it happened precisely in that time.

So we can easily deduce from Quran and Hadith that coming of the Mahdi/Messiah was destined when she-camels were to be abandoned and instead new and modern vehicles were to be invented, it is a clear clue and brilliant sign of truth of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as peaceful Mahdi/Messiah in Islam and as the End-Time Reformer.

The Hijaz Railway
The British Museum

In 1900, the Ottoman Sultan Abdülhamid II (reigned 1876–1909) put out an appeal to Muslims of the world to support the building of a railway connecting Damascus to the holy cities of Medina and Mecca. Built by public subscription and with the advice of German engineers, the line from Damascus reached Medina in 1908. Pilgrims who embarked from Haydarpaşa station in Istanbul could now travel all the way to Medina by rail. This reduced the journey from almost forty days to five. Thousands of pilgrims from Russia, Central Asia, Iran and Iraq also converged on Damascus to take the train.

https://www.britishmuseum.org/explo...y/routes/the_ottoman_route/hijaz_railway.aspx

So camels and train are signs , the earlier an ancient symbol of means of communication and the later the symbol of the modern means of communication; of course, cars, trucks, buses, ships, aeroplanes etc are also covered by the sign.
Regards

 

[McBell]

Mestemia said: ↑
In Post #2682
What does the Koran say about cars?
What does the Koran say about cloning?
What does the Koran say about medicine?
other than camel urine is a magical cure all...
paarsurrey said: ↑
Are you against animals? Camel is an innocent animal. Isn't it? Please

Paarsurrey says:
This innocent animal (camel) which was called the ship of desert in Arabia, was to be a sign as mentioned in Quran in Post #2833:
In this context the prophecy of the she-camels being abandoned can evidently be understood to mean that better, faster and more powerful means of transport will have been invented. I quoted an Hadith for which one could like to refresh oneself by reading Post #2854.

Quran and Hadith clearly hint that in the time of the Jesus' (Second Coming) , she-camel will be abandoned.
This happened in the nineteenth century when with the development of the modern vehicles, like Railway Trains and later Cars, Buses, Trucks plied on the roads instead of the camels.
Yes indeed it happened precisely in that time.

So we can easily deduce from Quran and Hadith that coming of the Mahdi/Messiah was destined when she-camels were to be abandoned and instead new and modern vehicles were to be invented, it is a clear clue and brilliant sign of truth of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as peaceful Mahdi/Messiah in Islam and as the End-Time Reformer.

The Hijaz Railway
The British Museum

In 1900, the Ottoman Sultan Abdülhamid II (reigned 1876–1909) put out an appeal to Muslims of the world to support the building of a railway connecting Damascus to the holy cities of Medina and Mecca. Built by public subscription and with the advice of German engineers, the line from Damascus reached Medina in 1908. Pilgrims who embarked from Haydarpaşa station in Istanbul could now travel all the way to Medina by rail. This reduced the journey from almost forty days to five. Thousands of pilgrims from Russia, Central Asia, Iran and Iraq also converged on Damascus to take the train.

https://www.britishmuseum.org/explo...y/routes/the_ottoman_route/hijaz_railway.aspx

So camels and train are signs , the earlier an ancient symbol of means of communication and the later the symbol of the modern means of communication; of course, cars, trucks, buses, ships, aeroplanes etc are also covered by the sign.
Regards

Again way out into left field.
Why bother replying to my post if you are not going to address what the post is about?

 

[outhouse]

In this context the prophecy of the she-camels being abandoned can evidently be understood to mean that better, faster and more powerful means of transport will have been invented

False.

And you in no way refuted anything.


Your trying to shove reality into your own Islamic logic, avoiding anything that has to do with REAL context. Which I have seen typical of muslims

 

[paarsurrey]

Was Islam spread by the sword?
No.
For example:
Spread of Islam in Central African Republic : [2]

Islam accounts for approximately 15% (750,000 people) of the population of the Central African Republic, making it the second most followed organized religion in the country after Christianity (80%).[1] The vast majority of Muslims are Sunni of Maliki school of jurisprudence. Most Central African Muslims live in the north-east, near the border with predominantly Muslim Chad and Sudan.[citation needed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_Central_African_Republic

Militias have taken advantage of the political vacuum in Central African Republic (CAR), engaging in ethnic cleansing of Muslims in a bid to erase the community from the country, human rights group Amnesty International has said.

Discussing Friday's report, entitled "Erased identity: Muslims in ethnically cleansed areas of the Central African Republic," Joanne Mariner, a senior crisis response adviser at the UK-based organisation, told Al Jazeera that Muslims in the western half of the country were being repressed and forced to abandon their religion.

More than 30,000 Muslims are living in seven enclaves, guarded by UN troops, across the country, but for those living outside, especially in rural areas, they are being targeted with impunity, the report found.

"They not allowed to express themselves as Muslims; if they are outside the enclaves, they cannot pray, dress in any way that identifies them as Muslim," Mariner said.

"Their survival depends on a daily routine of negotiation with anti-Balaka fighters."

Mariner said that many had been forced convert to Christianity or face persecution from the community.

Though violence in CAR has tapered off since late 2014, the country remains largely insecure [AFP]
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/...central-african-republic-150731083248166.html

Country/Region: Central African Republic
Muslim population 2010 Pew Report[1]:403,000
Muslim percentage (%) of total population 2010 Pew Report[1] :8.9
Percentage (%) of World Muslim population 2010 Pew Report[1] :< 0.1
Muslim percentage (%)Other sources : 15%[46][47]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country

I don't see any sword in spread of Islam in Central African Republic . Do you see any?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Regards

 

[outhouse]

We are talking about the origins of islam.

Could you address the OP , not make up your own rhetoric?

STAY on topic

Séléka CPSK-CPJP-UFDR is an alliance of rebel militia factions[1] that overthrew the Central African Republic (CAR) government on March 24, 2013.[2][3][4] Séléka leader Michel Djotodia became the nation's president from March 2013 until his resignation in January 2014.[5][6] Members of Séléka are almost entirely Muslim.[7][8][9][10]


Islam being spread by BLOOD and GUTS

“What’s worse is that the Seleka have recruited children as young as 13 to carry out some of this carnage.”

 

[outhouse]

Islamic genocide by the millions not even using the hundreds of thousands. Most westerners don't even have a clue how bad islamic violence really is but wish to open borders ignorantly.

Casualties: 3,000,000 - Nigeria, by Muslim [Hausa] dominated forces against the Ibo / Christians [1966-1970].[38][39]

Casualties: 3,500,000 - Sudan - from 1953 to 2005.[27] Including 2,500,000 between 1983-2005.[28][29]
Nature: Arab Islamic "supremacy" over "inferior" Southerners. [30][31] Jihad declared in 1983 by Numeiri,[32] and 1991 by al-Bashir.[33]

Casualties: 2,700,000 Chritians - (1915-1923) by Ottoman-Empire Muslim Turkey. 750,000 Assyrians, 500,000 Greeks and 1.5 million Armenians.[1]
Nature: 1.) Ethnic cleansing.[2] 2.) Islamic Jihad.[3]

Casualties: 3,000,000 - Bangladesh, 1971 (by Pakistan).[43]
Nature: Islamic Pakistanis' contempt for "impure" Bengalis.[44]

Casualties: Between 500,000 and 1,500,000 - Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988).[62]
Nature: 1.) Sunni-Shiite intolerance.[63] 2.) Arab racism/supremacy against Persians by Baathist Iraq.[64] 3.) Persian racism against Arabs.[65]

 

[paarsurrey]

Islamic genocide by the millions not even using the hundreds of thousands. Most westerners don't even have a clue how bad islamic violence really is but wish to open borders ignorantly.
Casualties: 3,000,000 - Nigeria, by Muslim [Hausa] dominated forces against the Ibo / Christians [1966-1970].[38][39]
Casualties: 3,500,000 - Sudan - from 1953 to 2005.[27] Including 2,500,000 between 1983-2005.[28][29]
Nature: Arab Islamic "supremacy" over "inferior" Southerners. [30][31] Jihad declared in 1983 by Numeiri,[32] and 1991 by al-Bashir.[33]
Casualties: 2,700,000 Chritians - (1915-1923) by Ottoman-Empire Muslim Turkey. 750,000 Assyrians, 500,000 Greeks and 1.5 million Armenians.[1]
Nature: 1.) Ethnic cleansing.[2] 2.) Islamic Jihad.[3]
Casualties: 3,000,000 - Bangladesh, 1971 (by Pakistan).[43]
Nature: Islamic Pakistanis' contempt for "impure" Bengalis.[44]
Casualties: Between 500,000 and 1,500,000 - Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988).[62]
Nature: 1.) Sunni-Shiite intolerance.[63] 2.) Arab racism/supremacy against Persians by Baathist Iraq.[64] 3.) Persian racism against Arabs.[65]

This has got nothing to do with Quran/Islam/Muhammad , they never commanded one to do that. Please
Regards

 

[outhouse]

This has got nothing to do with Quran/Islam/Muhammad

It has everything to do with islam.

Muhammad used sword and blood and guts to spread his religion, and set example foe these mass killings made by islam.

IN EACH sentence is a sourced information on how islam is to blame.

You cannot refute islams violence with any credibility. As a matter of fact, the source you have provided show islam spread with bloodshed.

 

[gnostic]

You are saying that because your reformative version of Islam is spreading in a peaceful fashion, the original version of Islam 1,500 years ago also spread in a peaceful way. I am saying that this doesn't follow at all. By your own admission, Ahmadiyya is a reformation. It is not how Islam was practiced in its original form. Let alone the cultural changes. So there is no connection between how your particular strain of Islam is spreading to how it spread originally. They have almost nothing to do with each other. And your argument is invalid.

Now I get it. Your argument was totally wrong, please don't mind .
You must not have read my post #2854 in this thread. Please read it and then you would now that in my case it was a valid and reasonable argument, while yours was incorrect.

The only person is wrong, paarsurrey, is you...about everything.

A) You keep saying that Ahmadiyya is the same religion as the one that Muhammad had started in the 7th century.

B) But at the same time, you keep insisting that Mirza Ghulam Ahmadi had reformed Islam, with his Ahmadiyya.​

Both of these can't be true, paarsurrey.

If A) is true, then there were no reforms.

If B) is true, then Mirza's version of Islam would not be the same as that of Muhammad's version.

Do you even know what the word - "reform" - even mean?

It mean making changes to existing ideas, to existing policies or to existing infrastructure. Reform is about replacing the old with the new.

The Qur'an already has a messiah - Jesus. No where does it state that there would be a new messiah, unless you seriously believe Mirza to be reincarnation of Jesus, and mainstream Islam reject the notion of reincarnation...well as far as I can tell.

Ahmad and Muhammad are nothing alike.

Ahamd was the ultimate pacifist.

Muhammad believe in survival by whatever mean - and that's including stealing, committing acts of violence or shedding blood, when needed.

Muhammad has a violent history, Ahmad doesn't. Muhammad had an army, Ahmad didn't. Muhammad had idols destroyed in the name of his religion, Ahmad didn't.

Ahmadiyya is nothing like the original Islam.

 

[paarsurrey]

A) You keep saying that Ahmadiyya is the same religion as the one that Muhammad had started in the 7th century.
B) But at the same time, you keep insisting that Mirza Ghulam Ahmadi had reformed Islam, with his Ahmadiyya.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad only brought out the truth that was already given to Muhammad in the shape of Quran/Islam, later Muslims deviated from it as prophesied by Muhammad. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad re------formed the existing creeds of Muslims, he did not propound any new creeds of Quran/Islam/Muhammad. It is so simple, should not be difficult to understand. Is it? Please
Regards

 

[YmirGF]

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad only brought out the truth that was already given to Muhammad in the shape of Quran/Islam, later Muslims deviated from it as prophesied by Muhammad. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad re------formed the existing creeds of Muslims, he did not propound any new creeds of Quran/Islam/Muhammad. It is so simple, should not be difficult to understand. Is it? Please
Regards

If that is true, paarsurrey, then why is there not a single Sunni or Shia source that recognizes the claims of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad or even references them in scholarly opinions?