• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Gharib

I want Khilafah back
Hehe... Do keep reading, Gharib. I think you will be mildly pleased at what the good Professor has to say. Hopefully you will take his criticisms kindly.

I have come across some of it and it doesn't seem that he is biased in any way, it just seems like an honest opinion. Especially in matters where he has to solely rely on early Islamic literature as there is no other records.

Nonetheless I have taken a liking to his work, thanks to you, and am hoping to soon get some of his books and go through them.
 
I have come across some of it and it doesn't seem that he is biased in any way, it just seems like an honest opinion. Especially in matters where he has to solely rely on early Islamic literature as there is no other records.

Nonetheless I have taken a liking to his work, thanks to you, and am hoping to soon get some of his books and go through them.

Better off getting Robert Hoyland's In God's path: The Arab conquests for early Islamic history from a non-Islamic perspective (also Seeing Islam as other's saw it is a good overview of the earliest sources from 1-2C AH).

Bernard Lewis is really a specialist in Ottoman Studies rather than being an Arabist or genuine specialist on early Islamic history.
 

Gharib

I want Khilafah back
Better off getting Robert Hoyland's In God's path: The Arab conquests for early Islamic history from a non-Islamic perspective (also Seeing Islam as other's saw it is a good overview of the earliest sources from 1-2C AH).

Bernard Lewis is really a specialist in Ottoman Studies rather than being an Arabist or genuine specialist on early Islamic history.

Thank you I will look into it. I don't mind what 'outsiders' have to say about Islam. I am quite curious, but ever since starting to read Islamic books there was always alot and still is a lot more to go through so reading about Islam from a non-Muslim perspective had never crossed the mind. But I do appreciate the works of honest and genuine non-Muslims as I do those of Muslims.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Somebody to kindly give a complete list of countries where one sees sword in action:

  • Only for conversion to religion Islam.
  • There was no other factor involved, absolutely none, for sure none,certainly none.
  • There were no earlier conversion to Islam before that in that country.
  • If there were earlier conversions , before you see sword in action; what were the clear motives of converts behind?
  • Were the converts since then "under sword" constantly till now that they could not revert to their previous religion? If not, why do they stick to Quran/Islam/Muhammad even now?
Please
Anybody please

Regards
 

Mestemia

Advocatus Diaboli
Premium Member
Somebody to kindly give a complete list of countries where one sees sword in action:

  • Only for conversion to religion Islam.
  • There was no other factor involved, absolutely none, for sure none,certainly none.
  • There were no earlier conversion to Islam before that in that country.
  • If there were earlier conversions , before you see sword in action; what were the clear motives of converts behind?
  • Were the converts since then "under sword" constantly till now that they could not revert to their previous religion? If not, why do they stick to Quran/Islam/Muhammad even now?
Please
Anybody please

Regards
Still beating your Kent Hovind horse?
 

The Emperor of Mankind

Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
Somebody to kindly give a complete list of countries where one sees sword in action:

  • Only for conversion to religion Islam.
  • There was no other factor involved, absolutely none, for sure none,certainly none.
  • There were no earlier conversion to Islam before that in that country.
  • If there were earlier conversions , before you see sword in action; what were the clear motives of converts behind?
  • Were the converts since then "under sword" constantly till now that they could not revert to their previous religion? If not, why do they stick to Quran/Islam/Muhammad even now?
Please
Anybody please

Regards

e81cc3a61181e32f98ef5346e3c768d2.jpg
 

The Emperor of Mankind

Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
I don't understand as to what you want to say. Kindly paraphrase your argument. Please
Regard

The meme in question points to the unreasonable amount of specificity you require of your opponents in order to consider your argument defeated.

Somebody to kindly give a complete list of countries where one sees sword in action:

  • Only for conversion to religion Islam.
  • There was no other factor involved, absolutely none, for sure none,certainly none.
  • There were no earlier conversion to Islam before that in that country.
  • If there were earlier conversions , before you see sword in action; what were the clear motives of converts behind?
  • Were the converts since then "under sword" constantly till now that they could not revert to their previous religion? If not, why do they stick to Quran/Islam/Muhammad even now?
Please
Anybody please

Regards

We don't need to answer all of these in order to point out that Islam reached new audiences and thus spread as a result of military action (i.e. the sword). We have given you examples of regions that were introduced to Islam (both as a religion and as a form of governance) as a direct result of Muslim armies going on the offensive. Egypt, Persia, North Africa, Spain, the Byzantine Empire, Eastern Europe and the Balkans.

For you to demand we go into such extraneous levels of detail in our arguments is irrational (especially in light of the fact you have not done likewise) and it is a challenge you have laid down because you know achieving it is impossible. Not to mention you have already quoted Wikipedia entries which support our point of view.
 

The Emperor of Mankind

Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
You are simply wrong.
Paganism or Greek polytheism, which is your religion, is different from the Idolater-ism of the Meccans, they believed in Allah and that the Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac etc were their ancestors, they also believed in angels.
Regards

They don't worship the same gods, no. And I never suggested that they did. Indeed, a goddess called Allat was worshipped during this time period. She was worshipped in the city of Ta'if. Ta'if was attacked twice by Muslim armies; the second time they surrendered. One of the conditions of their surrender was that they had to embrace Islam and stop worshipping Allat. Spread by the sword, right there.

I don't doubt they worshipped Allah. But considering the polytheist nature of pre-Islamic society, I doubt it would have been in a context that Islam would have agreed with. It sounds like Islam is just the cult (the old definition of the word: e.g. 'focussed worship') of one Pagan god that gained power and influence thanks to the actions of a barbarian warlord. It's speculated that both Zoroastrianism and Judaism began from similar roots - that their monotheisms were the cults of cultural gods that grew and gained influence until they were strong enough to start removing the worship of other gods from society.

Regarding pre-Islamic belief in Abraham, his sons and angels; what evidence do you have to support this?
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
The meme in question points to the unreasonable amount of specificity you require of your opponents in order to consider your argument defeated.

We don't need to answer all of these in order to point out that Islam reached new audiences and thus spread as a result of military action (i.e. the sword). We have given you examples of regions that were introduced to Islam (both as a religion and as a form of governance) as a direct result of Muslim armies going on the offensive. Egypt, Persia, North Africa, Spain, the Byzantine Empire, Eastern Europe and the Balkans.

For you to demand we go into such extraneous levels of detail in our arguments is irrational (especially in light of the fact you have not done likewise) and it is a challenge you have laid down because you know achieving it is impossible. Not to mention you have already quoted Wikipedia entries which support our point of view.
In other words yours is a superficial contention, if one goes deep, it would just melt away. I understand. Right? Please
Regards
 

Mestemia

Advocatus Diaboli
Premium Member
In other words yours is a superficial contention, if one goes deep, it would just melt away. I understand. Right? Please
Regards
No, YOURS is the superficial contention.
Thus the reason you set up a Kent Hovind Challenge.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
Well that is no argument.
They became Muslims on their own accord and learnt to speak Arabic and adopted the Arabic culture-the "modern and most civilised of that times.
"Arabization or Arabisation (Arabic: تعريب‎ taʻrīb) describes either a forced conquest of a non-Arab area and migration of Arab settlers into the new domain or a growing Arab influence on non-Arab populations, causing a gradual adoption of Arabic language and/or incorporation of Arab culture and Arab identity. It was most prominently achieved during the 7th century Arabian Muslim conquests, in which Arab armies were followed by massive tribal migration into the Muslim-occupied territories across Middle East and North Africa, spreading the Arabic culture, language, and in some cases Arab identity upon conquered nations. Arabian Muslims, as opposed to Arab Christians, brought the religion of Islam to the lands they conquered. The result: some elements of Arabian origin combined in various forms and degrees with elements taken from conquered civilizations and ultimately denominated "Arab". The Arabization continued also in modern times, being aggressively carried by the Ba'athist regimes of Iraq[1] and Syria, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Sudan,[2] Mauritania, Algeria[2] and Libya, enforcing policies of expanding colonial Arab settlements, expulsion of non-Arab minorities and in some cases enforcement of Arab identity and culture upon non-Arab populations. Some also described the aggressive expansion and persecution of non-Arab minorities by the Arab-dominated terror group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as Arabization.[3]

After the rise of Islam in Hejaz, Arab culture and language spread through conquest, trade and intermarriage of the non-Arab local population with the Arabs - in Egypt, Syria, Palestine andSudan. The Arabic language became common across these areas; dialects also formed. Although Yemen is traditionally held to be the homeland of Arabs, most[4][5] of the Yemeni population did not speak Arabic (but instead South Semitic languages) prior to the spread of Islam. The influence of Arabic has also been profound in many other countries, whose cultures have been influenced by Islam. Arabic was a major source of vocabulary for languages as diverse as Berber, Indonesian, Tagalog, Malay, Maltese, Persian, Punjabi, Sindhi, Somali, Swahili, Turkish,Urdu, Bengali, Spanish as well as other languages in countries, where these languages are spoken; a process that reached its high point in the 10th to the 14th centuries, the high point of Arabic culture, and although many of Arabic words have fallen out of use since, many still remain. For example, the Arabic word for book /kita:b/ is used in all the languages listed, apart from Malay, Somali, and Indonesian (where it specifically means "religious book")."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabization
Regards

For starters, yes, your own source talks of violence.

Also, I have personally spoken to an Algerian Berber who strongly resents Arabisation in his home country.

Is it important for an ordinary person? For me common-sense is enough.

Regards

You're having a debate on an Internet forum, and familiarity with such basic terminology will aid your credibility somewhat.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
They don't worship the same gods, no. And I never suggested that they did. Indeed, a goddess called Allat was worshipped during this time period. She was worshipped in the city of Ta'if. Ta'if was attacked twice by Muslim armies; the second time they surrendered. One of the conditions of their surrender was that they had to embrace Islam and stop worshipping Allat. Spread by the sword, right there.

I don't doubt they worshipped Allah. But considering the polytheist nature of pre-Islamic society, I doubt it would have been in a context that Islam would have agreed with. It sounds like Islam is just the cult (the old definition of the word: e.g. 'focussed worship') of one Pagan god that gained power and influence thanks to the actions of a barbarian warlord. It's speculated that both Zoroastrianism and Judaism began from similar roots - that their monotheisms were the cults of cultural gods that grew and gained influence until they were strong enough to start removing the worship of other gods from society.

Regarding pre-Islamic belief in Abraham, his sons and angels; what evidence do you have to support this?

Not exactly.

It seems that the pre-Muslim Arabs believed in One High God, who they called Allah or Rahman, who was basically inaccessible to worshippers. So they worshipped this plethora of angels, deities and God-men as kind of intermediaries.

There were already various traditions which had thrown out these intermediaries, such as the Jewish, Christian and Hanif faiths, while Zoroastrianism was also influential. Worth noting that it was a non-trinitarian form of Christianity which predominated in Northwest Arabia.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
A Greased Scotsman said:
They don't worship the same gods, no. And I never suggested that they did. Indeed, a goddess called Allat was worshipped during this time period. She was worshipped in the city of Ta'if. Ta'if was attacked twice by Muslim armies; the second time they surrendered. One of the conditions of their surrender was that they had to embrace Islam and stop worshipping Allat. Spread by the sword, right there.

I don't doubt they worshipped Allah. But considering the polytheist nature of pre-Islamic society, I doubt it would have been in a context that Islam would have agreed with. It sounds like Islam is just the cult (the old definition of the word: e.g. 'focussed worship') of one Pagan god that gained power and influence thanks to the actions of a barbarian warlord. It's speculated that both Zoroastrianism and Judaism began from similar roots - that their monotheisms were the cults of cultural gods that grew and gained influence until they were strong enough to start removing the worship of other gods from society.

Regarding pre-Islamic belief in Abraham, his sons and angels; what evidence do you have to support this?

Not exactly.
It seems that the pre-Muslim Arabs believed in One High God, who they called Allah or Rahman, who was basically inaccessible to worshippers. So they worshipped this plethora of angels, deities and God-men as kind of intermediaries.
There were already various traditions which had thrown out these intermediaries, such as the Jewish, Christian and Hanif faiths, while Zoroastrianism was also influential. Worth noting that it was a non-trinitarian form of Christianity which predominated in Northwest Arabia.
I like you post.
Muhammad's father's name was Abdullah which means one who is in service of Allah. Muhammad did not invent the word "Allah*", it was naturally in vogue in the Arabs.

*Allah is proper name of God in Arabic, which represents all the attributes of God or their essence.
Regards
 

Kirran

Premium Member
I like you post.
Muhammad's father's name was Abdullah which means one who is in service of Allah. Muhammad did not invent the word "Allah*", it was naturally in vogue in the Arabs.

*Allah is proper name of God in Arabic, which represents all the attributes of God or their essence.
Regards

Well, thankyou.

I learnt a lot about this period from Reza Aslan's book 'No god but God'.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Well, thank you.
I learnt a lot about this period from Reza Aslan's book 'No god but God'.
You will please note that nobody has come forward to give a complete with consensus list of countries where Islam spread at gun-point, that shows the historians must be in discord and quandary in this connection. Please
Regards
 

Mestemia

Advocatus Diaboli
Premium Member
You will please note that nobody has come forward to give a complete with consensus list of countries where Islam spread at gun-point, that shows the historians must be in discord and quandary in this connection

All it shows is that no one is buying the snake oil you got up for sail.
A complete list is not needed to show you are flat out wrong.
The few samples already presented that caused you to back peddle and start moving the goal posts were more than enough.
 

David M

Well-Known Member
In most of countries Islam did not spread about sword , i mean forcing people to convert to Islam , like north Africa as you said , or south Asia like Indonisia or Malisia or India or Iran , it's spread by peace .

"By the sword" does not mean literally putting a sword to each person's throat to force them to convert. It means spreading the religion by military conquest and the subsequent imposition of rulership and laws held in place by military/political power that favour converting to the religion.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
You will please note that nobody has come forward to give a complete with consensus list of countries where Islam spread at gun-point, that shows the historians must be in discord and quandary in this connection. Please
Regards

You will please note that you're putting forward a strawman.
 
Top