Was Islam spread by the sword?

[paarsurrey]

Was Islam spread by the sword?

No.

For example:

Spread of Islam in South Africa: [2]

Islam in South Africa is a minority religion, practiced by less than 1.5% of the total population, according to estimates.

History

The VOC period[edit][1]

In the 17th century the Dutch controlled East Indies and the Cape. Muslims were brought from Dutch East Indies (modern day Indonesia), etc. as slaves including those who waged Jihad in the Dutch colonies.[3]

The first recorded arrival of free Muslims known as Mardyckers is in 1658. Mardycka or Maredhika implies freedom. The Mardyckers were people from Amboyna in the southern Moluccas and were brought to the Cape in order to defend the newly established settlement against the indigenous people, and also to provide labour in the same way that they had been employed at home, first by the Portuguese and later by the Dutch, in Amboyna.

Jan Van Riebeeck had requested that the Mardyckers be sent to the Cape as a labour force. The Mardyckers were prohibited from openly practising their religion: Islam. This was in accordance with the Statute of India (drafted by Van Dieman in 1642) which stated in one of its placaats [statutes]: "No one shall trouble the Amboinese about their religion or annoy them; so long as they do not practise in public or venture to propagate it amongst Christians and heathens. Offenders to be punished with death, but should there be amongst them those who had been drawn to God to become Christians, they were not to be prevented from joining Christian churches."

The same Placaat was re-issued on 23 August 1657 by Governor John Maetsuycker probably in anticipation of the advent of the Mardyckers to the Cape of Good Hope. The Placaat governed the Cape as part of the Dutch Colonial Empire.[4]

Islam in South Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't see any sword in spread of Islam in South Africa.

Regards

 

[FearGod]

Yes its Atheism,all those soldiers run around screaming Atheism is great,i don't know ask an American.

Is it by screaming or by deeds, so if an atheist doing a bad deed and then he says God is great then you'll be smart enough to understand that he is a muslim because he says those words.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

After the death of Muhammad I think people power over
And religion
Why let people religion
Any religion apostasy
But the followers of Muhammad
By sword and blood of many killing apostates
Read about the wars of apostasy and the bloody history of Islam
This was the beginning of the spread of Islam
Muhammad and his teachings wanbaah
To date, anbaah marching in the same teachings

 

[England my lionheart]

Well if A and B are following Islam and A and B differ in many aspects, beliefs, and actions than you have three possibilities,


A are followers of Islam B are not.
B are followers of Islam A are not.
Neither A nor B are followers of Islam.

One thing is for sure is that it can't be that A and B are followers of Islam.

There is a degree in which differences are accepted but when these differences are huge we can't say that it is a matter of different interpretation. It is a matter of different interests and motives.

So when a Muslim becomes an Apostate and is killed for being such its a matter of different interests and motives?

 

[England my lionheart]

Is it by screaming or by deeds, so if an atheist doing a bad deed and then he says God is great then you'll be smart enough to understand that he is a muslim because he says those words.

It was a slight joke,you missed it but nevermind

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

to paarsurreyYou evaded the discussion of examples of sterile
If the whole world believes in Islam
Can this world deny the fact that Islam was spread by the sword
And you know there are two ways for the spread of Islam
Two Al-targheeb wa'l-tarheeb
And also that the teachings of your religion are the teachings
Encourages the human sex
This is the teaching of latertkibalansan
But landing with human-level-oops will not complete my words

 

[Sabour]

So when a Muslim becomes an Apostate and is killed for being such its a matter of different interests and motives?

Yes it may be. There is an interest of making Islam look bad and this is a fact. We can see it everyday.

It also may be a misunderstanding of Islam also.

Apostasy in Islam is a broad subject.


I suggest you read this post.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/islam-dir/166373-apostasy-islam.html#post3867655


I am not saying that these are true, I can't give my opinion as there are many things I don't know as I am not a scholar.

What I am sure of is that there is no compulsion in religion as it is mentioned in the Quraan.

 

[FearGod]

So when a Muslim becomes an Apostate and is killed for being such its a matter of different interests and motives?

Which verse says that the Apostate should be killed ?

 

[paarsurrey]

Which verse says that the Apostate should be killed ?

A good and pertinent question.

Regards

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Any enmity against God
Fighting and Messenger
Cut hands and legs of the dispute

 

[England my lionheart]

Which verse says that the Apostate should be killed ?

Not the Qur'an but shariah hudood does unless they repent,herein lies the problem,to a very large portion of followers of Islam where shariah is in place its a fitting end to someone who has changed their religion.

 

[paarsurrey]

Was Islam spread by the sword?

No.

For example:

Spread of Islam in South Africa: [3]

Islam in South Africa is a minority religion, practiced by less than 1.5% of the total population, according to estimates.

History

The VOC period[edit][2]

During the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century the Dutch continued to exile Muslim leaders from Dutch East Indiesto the Cape.
1667 saw the arrival of first Muslim political exiles banished by the Dutch to the Cape. These political exiles or Orang Cayenwere Muslim men of wealth and influence who were banished to the Cape from their homeland in the East because the Dutch feared them as a threat to their political and economic hegemony.

The first political exiles were the rulers of Sumatra. They were Sheikh Abdurahman Matabe Shah and Sheikh Mahmood. Both were buried in Constantia. From the very outset the Cape authorities accommodated the exiles away from Cape Town as they feared the exiles would escape. A tomb for these political exiles has been erected on "Islam Hill" in Constantia in the Cape.[4] Sheikh Abdurahman Matebe Shah used his exile to consolidate the teaching of Islam among slaves in the Cape.[5]

The next Orang Cayen was Sheikh Yusuf of Bantam who arrived on board 'De Voetboog' on 2 April 1694 along with his family and followers. They were housed on a farm in Zandvleit, near the mouth of the Eerste River in the Cape, far from Cape Town, on 14 June 1694. The Company's attempt to isolate Shaykh Yusuf at Zandvleit did not succeed. On the contrary, Zandvleit turned out to be the rallying point for 'fugitive' slaves and other exiles from the East.

It was here that the first cohesive Muslim community in South Africa was established. Since the Sheikh and his followers hailed from Macassar, the district around Zandvleit is still known today as Macassar.[4]

Islam in South Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I don't see any sword in spread of Islam in South Africa.

Regards

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Surah Al-baqarah verse 217
And also the Hadith of Muhammad and a books and Islamic sources neither apologized nor honestly compensated transfer of the weak capabilities of the device which would serve

 

[FearGod]

Surah Al-baqarah verse 217
And also the Hadith of Muhammad and a books and Islamic sources neither apologized nor honestly compensated transfer of the weak capabilities of the device which would serve

Your ignorance in Islam is overwhelming, the verse 2:217 doesn't order to kill the Apostate.

 

[icehorse]

paarsurrey -

The OP says "Was Islam Spread by the Sword". The way to read this question is something like: "Was Islam *sometimes or frequently* Spread by the Sword". That was the intention of the original question.

The way you are answering is for a different question. Your answers would fit for the question "Was Islam Spread by the Sword 100% of the time".

So when you give individual examples, it doesn't really answer the OP. Does that make sense?

 

[YmirGF]

So when you give individual examples, it doesn't really answer the OP. Does that make sense?

Not likely, it's all Peace, Love and Beards in his mind.

 

[Ryujin]

In six years, no matter how hard I tried I could not figure Obama out. He did about everything wrong I could think of but every hat I put on him did not fit. Only when I researched his anticolionialist roots did everything fit. That movie was in part based on just such a study. You put anti-colonial/opportunist as his position then every action he takes adds up. He would not fit in an Islamic hat, a race baiter hat, not even just a dumb person hat. He was intelligent and idealistic but I just never could figure out how to explain shooting a few terrorists, sending the bust of Churchill back, not likening the US, not hate the US, he juts does not like the tradition US, he was not anti-Jewish but certainly was no friend and had little use for England or our other traditional allies. Only an anti-colonialist hat fit.

Anyway off the subject I guess but I recommend the movie.

I think you're indulging in the fantasy of an "Imperial Presidency". The position of president is powerful, yes, but it isn't equivalent to an elected king. You are trying to give a personality to his policies. This is misguided. He, alone, does not decide on official policies. The actual individual that becomes president does not matter quite a much as you think. They are, in essence, figure heads for their party and it is certain circles within their political party that collectively decide on policies. The president, himself, isn't entirely responsible for his policies, as it is not he that comes up with them. How could he? In today's world, it is only natural that one would trust the various experts one consults, instead of doing simply what one personally feels to be best.

Furthermore, I am seeing a trend here. You prefer to think of things in a narrative fashion, yes? You see history as a story, with events that have clear motives and, if not "good" factions and "bad" factions, then at least with fundamentally "better" and "worse" factions. This would explain why you ascribe so much responsibility for historical events on individuals, such as American presidents.

I have also seen other posts that support this view. You've stated that you believe:

1. That European Christians were primarily the "good" faction and superior culture in history, up until the early modern age when the colonies of the Christian countries broke away, with many becoming democracies. They then became the primary "Good" faction in history.

2. That the Arab, Saharan, Persian, and Turkish Muslims were, primarily, a "bad" faction in history, generally. You have even stated that "Christianity is good which occasionally does bad, while Islam is fundamentally bad but occasionally does good."

3. That anything "good" that any western culture has ever done has been because of their religion. Even if the person was not religious, the very fact that they were raised in a Christian culture accounts for their accomplishment.


Do you realize that if the word "Christian" was changed to European and the word "Muslim" was changed to "middle eastern" that these views could be considered bigoted?

Moving on, you are aware that "America 2016" is widely considered to be very partisan and biased, right? There are a large number of films that have capitalized on the fears of the "most generous demographic in history", mid to upper class Christian Americans(mostly of European descent). I am somewhat surprised that you hold the movie in such high esteem. It seems to simply be generic anti-Obama propaganda. I mean, the list of books that the director has written include " Obama's America: Unmaking the American Dream" and "The Roots of Obama's Rage" for Pete's sake!


"He did about everything wrong I could think of"

Really? You presume to know what is "right" and "wrong" in the incredibly complicated realm of international politics? How vain. Of course, criticizing an elected official is a given right and is healthy, but I find it unfair to judge him as having done "about everything wrong" that you could think of. Aside from the fact that it isn't him, personally, making the decisions on his own, he and his close circle are vastly more informed on the current nature of modern events than the vast majority of us in the public could be. Again, of course it is good to criticize and hold those in power to high standards, but those with such an incredibly important job deserve to, at least, have their decisions respected.


"shooting a few terrorists, sending the bust of Churchill back, not likening the US, not hate the US, he juts does not like the tradition US, he was not anti-Jewish but certainly was no friend and had little use for England or our other traditional allies."

1. I don't blame him for sending the bust of Churchill back. The fact that he fought the bad guys doesn't automatically make him a "good" guy. He was cruel and a bigot and not the type of person to idolize.

2. The U.K. has become more and more jingoistic and oppressive as time goes on. Likewise with France. Perhaps, we no longer need such "traditional" allies.

 

[outhouse]

I think you're indulging in the fantasy of an "Imperial Presidency". The position of president is powerful, yes, but it isn't equivalent to an elected king. You are trying to give a personality to his policies. This is misguided. He, alone, does not decide on official policies. The actual individual that becomes president does not matter quite a much as you think. They are, in essence, figure heads for their party and it is certain circles within their political party that collectively decide on policies. The president, himself, isn't entirely responsible for his policies, as it is not he that comes up with them. How could he? In today's world, it is only natural that one would trust the various experts one consults, instead of doing simply what one personally feels to be best.

Furthermore, I am seeing a trend here. You prefer to think of things in a narrative fashion, yes? You see history as a story, with events that have clear motives and, if not "good" factions and "bad" factions, then at least with fundamentally "better" and "worse" factions. This would explain why you ascribe so much responsibility for historical events on individuals, such as American presidents.

I have also seen other posts that support this view. You've stated that you believe:

1. That European Christians were primarily the "good" faction and superior culture in history, up until the early modern age when the colonies of the Christian countries broke away, with many becoming democracies. They then became the primary "Good" faction in history.

2. That the Arab, Saharan, Persian, and Turkish Muslims were, primarily, a "bad" faction in history, generally. You have even stated that "Christianity is good which occasionally does bad, while Islam is fundamentally bad but occasionally does good."

3. That anything "good" that any western culture has ever done has been because of their religion. Even if the person was not religious, the very fact that they were raised in a Christian culture accounts for their accomplishment.


Do you realize that if the word "Christian" was changed to European and the word "Muslim" was changed to "middle eastern" that these views could be considered bigoted?

Moving on, you are aware that "America 2016" is widely considered to be very partisan and biased, right? There are a large number of films that have capitalized on the fears of the "most generous demographic in history", mid to upper class Christian Americans(mostly of European descent). I am somewhat surprised that you hold the movie in such high esteem. It seems to simply be generic anti-Obama propaganda. I mean, the list of books that the director has written include " Obama's America: Unmaking the American Dream" and "The Roots of Obama's Rage" for Pete's sake!


"He did about everything wrong I could think of"

Really? You presume to know what is "right" and "wrong" in the incredibly complicated realm of international politics? How vain. Of course, criticizing an elected official is a given right and is healthy, but I find it unfair to judge him as having done "about everything wrong" that you could think of. Aside from the fact that it isn't him, personally, making the decisions on his own, he and his close circle are vastly more informed on the current nature of modern events than the vast majority of us in the public could be. Again, of course it is good to criticize and hold those in power to high standards, but those with such an incredibly important job deserve to, at least, have their decisions respected.


"shooting a few terrorists, sending the bust of Churchill back, not likening the US, not hate the US, he juts does not like the tradition US, he was not anti-Jewish but certainly was no friend and had little use for England or our other traditional allies."

1. I don't blame him for sending the bust of Churchill back. The fact that he fought the bad guys doesn't automatically make him a "good" guy. He was cruel and a bigot and not the type of person to idolize.

2. The U.K. has become more and more jingoistic and oppressive as time goes on. Likewise with France. Perhaps, we no longer need such "traditional" allies.

Well said.

I don't like any glimpse of fanaticism of fundamentalism from any religion, or person for that matter, including some atheist.

Balance is key, and I don't see that view from him.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Who wants to study the causes of war
This is a separate topic
Here the subject did Islam SPREAD by the sword
Our evidence is evidence of invariant lankhtraha of Islamic books
Points in the dialogue are from the heart of the matter
Yes Islam SPREAD by the sword
Example
Electricity

Of the discovered

Discovered the world DOE
Deployment of electricity published world alkilani
And the development of electricity
Until I got to us
In different ways
Voltiat multiple, negative and positive, continuous and AC
But when we ask who knew electricity and who is posting
We say so and so
Thus the case with Islam
How to say how this spread

And you can't deny that this beginning
So why deny friends rally round the subject and

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Why be afraid of the Declaration on the right to
Why wants to say that Islam has spread with roses

Say a Muslim here
Islam spread by the sword
And States that did not know the sword
They are known as encouragement

For example
Tell him why not doubting Islam and marries a second wife
Coaxing sexy
In some cases the wife also offers you
If you leave your religion
Yes this gets
In the West, through migration

Most States embraced Islam through peaceful means
To find out about Islam for what it is
Or they know of that religion do not interfere and no different from other pagan religions
Do not interfere with other pagan religions, especially in the field of pornography