Is there a complete list of countries where Islam spread by the sword?

[Flankerl]

My question was person (you accept or not) , i am not talking about politic system (Parliament) agreement

The problem is that it was the answer. If the electorate and the Politicians who were elected by the electorate chose to elect a Muslim politician as Premier/Chancellor than that's it.

Whether I approve of it is completely unimportant as it would change nothing.
So no idea what you want from me. Perhaps I am just too non-Muslim to understand what you want. I wouldn't take up arms against this person, is that what you mean?
I also would accept a Green or FDP Chancellor even though it would be bad for the country.

 

[Godobeyer]

The problem is that it was the answer. If the electorate and the Politicians who were elected by the electorate chose to elect a Muslim politician as Premier/Chancellor than that's it.

Whether I approve of it is completely unimportant as it would change nothing.
So no idea what you want from me. Perhaps I am just too non-Muslim to understand what you want. I wouldn't take up arms against this person, is that what you mean?
I also would accept a Green or FDP Chancellor even though it would be bad for the country.

why you complicate the answser , and expansion it !!!

it's simple question and suppose reply by simple to answser , Yes or NO would be very enough .

 

[Flankerl]

The problem is that you don't specify what "accept" means to you. So I am obviously not going to just write it if you have a completely different understanding of the word.

And its a matter of fact that I can't even vote in Germany(Federal or State Elections) or Israel.

 

[Kirran]

this is it (TOP LEADER OF BERBER was JEWISH) , when some one here agree that Kahina was Jewish by use Wikiperdia source , that's make impression that all Berber were Jews .

do you get it ?

It may make that impression on you, but it certainly isn't stating it.

good

so it's defintly in most of land not by Islam don't spread by sword .

in case or two cases the pressure and abuse not lead to voilence or resistance , but in all countries and cities , that impossible for my opinion .

In most of the land currently occupied by Muslims, the original Muslim rule over the region came about as a result of conquest by Caliphates. The reasons for actual conversion of people,subsequently, were varied.

As for the final opinion, it is utterly unsubstantiated.

 

[paarsurrey]

In most of the land currently occupied by Muslims, the original Muslim rule over the region came about as a result of conquest by Caliphates. The reasons for actual conversion of people,subsequently, were varied.
As for the final opinion, it is utterly unsubstantiated.

We are not discussing spread of Muslim rule, that is political, we are discussing spread of religion of Islam. Both are entirely different things.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

The thing is, paarsurrey, that no one, with an iota of credibility, would say that Islam was always spread by the sword. It is without question that Muslim armies rampaged the known world for centuries and it is silly to suggest that this was a peaceful expansion... as they did not arrive with trays of milk and cookies.

One may like to read Post #85 above.
Regards

 

[YmirGF]

We are not discussing spread of Muslim rule, that is political, we are discussing spread of religion of Islam. Both are entirely different things.
Regards

Frankly, that is just dishonest. You simply cannot separate the two.

One may like to read Post #85 above.
Regards

I did and you are promoting a very dishonest trend by implying they are separate things.

 

[Kirran]

We are not discussing spread of Muslim rule, that is political, we are discussing spread of religion of Islam. Both are entirely different things.
Regards

You don't see there being any connection between the two? I explained what I saw as the connections in my other posts in this thread.

 

[YmirGF]

You don't see there being any connection between the two? I explained what I saw as the connections in my other posts in this thread.

Given that Islam is a total or complete way of life, it is absurdity on steroids, to claim that Muslim politics are not directly supporting the spread of Islam.

 

[paarsurrey]

You don't see there being any connection between the two? I explained what I saw as the connections in my other posts in this thread.

There is absolutely no connection between the two.
Ahmadiyya or true Islam has proved it by spreading to 206 countries of the world in about a hundred years, peacefully, without having any rule in any country. Right?
Regards

 

[YmirGF]

There is absolutely no connection between the two.
Ahmadiyya or true Islam has proved it by spreading to 206 countries of the world in about a hundred years, peacefully, without having any rule in any country. Right?
Regards

The Ahmadiyya sect is an insignificant blip in the sea of the Ummah. Yours is a very recent innovation and one the other sects are not terribly keen on.

 

[Kirran]

There is absolutely no connection between the two.
Ahmadiyya or true Islam has proved it by spreading to 206 countries of the world in about a hundred years, peacefully, without having any rule in any country. Right?
Regards

Wrong. Very tiny numbers compared to Islam globally. I will reiterate, I think the Ahmadiyya movement is a nice development.

 

[paarsurrey]

Wrong. Very tiny numbers compared to Islam globally. I will reiterate, I think the Ahmadiyya movement is a nice development.

Religion does not necessarily mean to rule, Quran clearly mentions it:

[4:60] O ye who believe! obey Allah, and obeyHis Messenger and those who are in authority among you. And if you differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah andHisMessenger if you are believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is best and most commendable in the end.

http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=4&verse=59

Every Muslim has to abide by the law or by the constitution of a land one lives in. And the constitution of every country could be changed if it is against the interest/benefit of its people.
The ruler or government may belong to any religion or no religion, if if does not interfere with the religious core teachings, it has to be obeyed in the secular and temporal matters, these are unambiguous instructions of the truthful religion.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Please provide a complete and consensus list of countries where people were forced to convert to Islam on the sword on their neck at every individual.
Regards

 

[Kirran]

Religion does not necessarily mean to rule, Quran clearly mentions it:

[4:60] O ye who believe! obey Allah, and obeyHis Messenger and those who are in authority among you. And if you differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah andHisMessenger if you are believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is best and most commendable in the end.

http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=4&verse=59

Every Muslim has to abide by the law or by the constitution of a land one lives in. And the constitution of every country could be changed if it is against the interest/benefit of its people.
The ruler or government may belong to any religion or no religion, if if does not interfere with the religious core teachings, it has to be obeyed in the secular and temporal matters, these are unambiguous instructions of the truthful religion.

Regards

Never stated otherwise. You misrepresent me.

Please provide a complete and consensus list of countries where people were forced to convert to Islam on the sword on their neck at every individual.
Regards

Zero. Strawman.

 

[paarsurrey]

One may like to read Post #84, if I understood on correctly. If I was wrong to understand it, I will delete/cancel my response with a sorry.
Regards

 

[Kirran]

One may like to read Post #84, if I understood on correctly. If I was wrong to understand it, I will delete/cancel my response with a sorry.
Regards

I believe you have misunderstood me, yes. Or at least only understood a part of what I was saying. I have been talking about the links between Islamic rule and the spread of the religion of Islam.

 

[paarsurrey]

I believe you have misunderstood me, yes. Or at least only understood a part of what I was saying. I have been talking about the links between Islamic rule and the spread of the religion of Islam.

Sorry, if I misunderstood.
Sometimes it might look that they were interlinked, but that is not the case, it is a superficial look.
Regards

 

[Kirran]

Sorry, if I misunderstood.
Sometimes it might look that they were interlinked, but that is not the case, it is a superficial look.
Regards

I disagree, I think it is very clear that in many cases Islamic governments have enacted policies and engendered the development of social environments in which there were material and/or social advantages to conversion to Islam. I have addressed much of this in this thread.

 

[Nietzsche]

We are not discussing spread of Muslim rule, that is political, we are discussing spread of religion of Islam. Both are entirely different things.
Regards

Would you say the same of Christian rulers?