Was Islam spread by the sword?

[gnostic]

You can't, Prophet Muhammed was a single man,he wasn't a leader or a king but just a layman.

a layman wouldn't have an army at his beck and call. he couldn't be a layman, if he was the leading his army. by "leading" an army, he was a "leader".

He ruled in Medinia, and later from Mecca. He was both a political leader and military leader; he was a crown-less king, a warlord, a judge and a prophet, all rolled into one.

if you seriously think he wasn't a judge or warlord, then why treat any broken treatise with him as act of treason?

sorry, but you are seriously delusional if you think he was just a "layman" and not a "leader".

 

[gnostic]

Islam did not spread with sword or because of sword.
Islam spread for its natural, rational and peaceful teachings.

a religion of peace, wouldn't require an army and would require weapons, which is exactly what Muhammad built, first in Medinia, and later in the rest of the Arabian peninsula. Peace wouldn't require being "armed", and go raiding caravans and supplies, which is exactly what Muhammad and his earliest followers did. Peace wouldn't require him returning back to Mecca with over 10,000 armed men, or go around punishing those towns or villages who didn't accept him as a prophet or accept his religion in the first place. Peace, wouldn't require Muhammad lead the attack against the Qurayza, executed the men who didn't converted, and then enslaved the women and children.

And what happened immediately Muhammad's death. There were fighting between two factions, over leadership succession, and let's not forget it was army/armies that attacked Syria, and then Persia.

What of Egypt, the Caucasus, India?

The caliphates and sultans got themselves more land, more wealth, more men for their armies, more war captives in which they could enlarge their harems, after each conquest or invasion.

Do you remember that Muslims could attack any nation, until they give up, and each could take a fifth in loots or plunders? you couldn't do that without weapons.

Do you seriously there was not a single sword drawn in Muhammad's lifetime or afterward that didn't invade those countries? Yeah, right, really peaceful.

Seriously, it is just another bout of self-denials that many Muslims are so famous for.

 

[Sabour]

a religion of peace, wouldn't require an army and would require weapons, which is exactly what Muhammad built, first in Medinia, and later in the rest of the Arabian peninsula. Peace wouldn't require being "armed", and go raiding caravans and supplies, which is exactly what Muhammad and his earliest followers did. Peace wouldn't require him returning back to Mecca with over 10,000 armed men, or go around punishing those towns or villages who didn't accept him as a prophet or accept his religion in the first place. Peace, wouldn't require Muhammad lead the attack against the Qurayza, executed the men who didn't converted, and then enslaved the women and children.

And what happened immediately Muhammad's death. There were fighting between two factions, over leadership succession, and let's not forget it was army/armies that attacked Syria, and then Persia.

What of Egypt, the Caucasus, India?

The caliphates and sultans got themselves more land, more wealth, more men for their armies, more war captives in which they could enlarge their harems, after each conquest or invasion.

Do you remember that Muslims could attack any nation, until they give up, and each could take a fifth in loots or plunders? you couldn't do that without weapons.

Do you seriously there was not a single sword drawn in Muhammad's lifetime or afterward that didn't invade those countries? Yeah, right, really peaceful.

Seriously, it is just another bout of self-denials that many Muslims are so famous for.

No army means an invitation which says come and kill us.

Banu Qurayza are people who were living with muslims and had a treaty with them and broke it in a middle of war and allowed the enemy to come from their side they were supposedly protecting.

 

[FearGod]

a layman wouldn't have an army at his beck and call. he couldn't be a layman, if he was the leading his army. by "leading" an army, he was a "leader".

He ruled in Medinia, and later from Mecca. He was both a political leader and military leader; he was a crown-less king, a warlord, a judge and a prophet, all rolled into one.

if you seriously think he wasn't a judge or warlord, then why treat any broken treatise with him as act of treason?

sorry, but you are seriously delusional if you think he was just a "layman" and not a "leader".

The prophet wasn't a worrier or a leader,he was kind of businessman and has no interest on ruling or kingdom.

His message was a peaceful one, people trusted him because they know that he never lied and was a trustworthy, that made many to believe him and the pagan leaders were worried and they tried to tempt him as to make him their leader but he refused their offer and then the hardship started when they declared later on the war against him and then God sent the verses of war.

http://muslim-responses.com/Prophet_Muhammads_Intention/Prophet_Muhammads_Intention_


[youtube]bXjRdH8Nxw0[/youtube]
Prophet Muhammad rejected the king and money to publish Islam The Decision

 

[gnostic]

The prophet wasn't a worrier or a leader,he was kind of businessman and has no interest on ruling or kingdom.

A businessman wouldn't have armed followers or an army.

Do you seriously believe that Muhammad and his followers took parts in raids and battles, without a single weapon in sight?

They certainly didn't come in peace with flowers and chocolate.

You are still in denial of what took place with the Qurayza. The only men that survived that fateful days, were those who agree to convert. The rest had their heads chopped off.

Muslims seemed to laud the martyr death above all other death. Well, these Qurayza had surrendered and died, without converting, so their death were that of martyrs.

Muhammad's death wasn't martyred. despite being poor at the time off death, he wasn't face with life-and-death dilemma, in which he was force to choose. That's not a martyr death.

 

[paarsurrey]

You're blaming the wrong party here. Saudi Arabia does not represent Islam, but itself as a country only. It is unfortunate that Saudi Arabia does not practice Islam the way it should, it has its own law as a country. Islam has nothing to do with it!

I totally agree with you.

Regards

 

[steeltoes]

I would like to reply to your post but this thread is about Islam and not Christianity. If you'd like, feel free to start another debate thread.

When I see a Christian pointing fingers I tend to throw my 2 cents in.

 

[FearGod]

A businessman wouldn't have armed followers or an army.

They were already armed, arabs used to fight in daily basis at those times for the simplest things and they got their swords and horses always ready.

Do you seriously believe that Muhammad and his followers took parts in raids and battles, without a single weapon in sight?

They were well armed to face the atheists, the believers won and the atheists fled.

They certainly didn't come in peace with flowers and chocolate.

Prophet Muhammad wasn't a worrier, whether you want to believe it or not.

You are still in denial of what took place with the Qurayza. The only men that survived that fateful days, were those who agree to convert. The rest had their heads chopped off.

Did you see them or that is the wishful thinking.

Muslims seemed to laud the martyr death above all other death. Well, these Qurayza had surrendered and died, without converting, so their death were that of martyrs.

Do you value the death of the soldier protecting your homeland ?

Muhammad's death wasn't martyred. despite being poor at the time off death, he wasn't face with life-and-death dilemma, in which he was force to choose. That's not a martyr death.

So what if the prophet died while not in a war,Khaled Bin Alwalid wished to die in a war,he feared God while being the bravest of all men,he defeated the Persians and the Romans and died at bed.

[youtube]Js6MvSmnbmU[/youtube]
Final Moments of Khalid Ibn Waleed

 

[Maldini]

Convert or die.:areyoucra


Which verse says convert to Islam or die ?

Khalifa at the time said that to perisan people, Just answer me this do you really think a country as large as Iran coverted to Islam ina ablink of an eye by choice? Just answer this.

Why you need to announce atheism, is it kind of a hero thing ?
Why not be a hero like the prophet and defend atheism and convert your people back to atheism in which you think of it to be better than Islam,maybe then sex tourism will be allowed in Iran with your efforts for freedom ?

GOD do you even hear yourself?!

They have been released, but i don't agree that they should be arrested for that, Why to blame Islam.

Where in the quran that women should be arrested for dancing ?that isn't adultery.

By posting a bail. They are still considered conivcts.

So it was your statistics made by your observations.

There isn't a offical statistics. Why? since the results would be embarrassing.

I don't agree that people should be arrested for discussing their opinions about religion .

But what i know that there are some Christians and Jews living freely and are well protected in Iran,why not forced to Islam or being killed.

Doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not. Basic human rights are not up to debate for other people.

A lot of them have fled from Iran, they have no media outlet, nobody knows them, they have to go to special schools, And if a Muslim wanted to convert to Christianity or Judaism he will be punished.

Back to the Thread's title, It's a fact that it was spread by the sword. Mohammad was not on the defensive when he fought non-believers in Mecca and Medina, and he did destroy all the wooden Idols, meaning he didn't believe in people having their own religion.

He was a self-righteous warmonger who started an empire and possibly a sex-addict, and by the way he didn't offer any poof for him being a prophet.

 

[FearGod]

Khalifa at the time said that to perisan people, Just answer me this do you really think a country as large as Iran coverted to Islam ina ablink of an eye by choice? Just answer this.

Do you mean that Arabs were so brave and the Persians were cowards ?
Why do you think they were cowards and do you think that they are still so ?

Which Khalifa that terrified the Persian people and converted them all to Islam and what is your source?

 

[FearGod]

Doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not. Basic human rights are not up to debate for other people.

A lot of them have fled from Iran, they have no media outlet, nobody knows them, they have to go to special schools, And if a Muslim wanted to convert to Christianity or Judaism he will be punished.

Back to the Thread's title, It's a fact that it was spread by the sword. Mohammad was not on the defensive when he fought non-believers in Mecca and Medina, and he did destroy all the wooden Idols, meaning he didn't believe in people having their own religion.

He was a self-righteous warmonger who started an empire and possibly a sex-addict, and by the way he didn't offer any poof for him being a prophet.

Those are lies, you just want to believe it due to your wishful thinking.

Churches are built in Iran and no one force them to Islam,i think it is stupid to think that Christians were forced to convert to Islam otherwise killed.

 

[Windwalker]

You're blaming the wrong party here. Saudi Arabia does not represent Islam, but itself as a country only. It is unfortunate that Saudi Arabia does not practice Islam the way it should, it has its own law as a country. Islam has nothing to do with it!

Isn't the current face of Saudi Arabia based on their interpretation of what the true meaning of Islam is to them, that this is how Islam should be properly practiced? Isn't this really just a case of different interpretations of the Koran and what it means to follow Islam? Don't they think the rest of the Muslim world has got it wrong?

 

[Smart_Guy]

(1)Isn't the current face of Saudi Arabia based on their interpretation of what the true meaning of Islam is to them, that this is how Islam should be properly practiced? (2)Isn't this really just a case of different interpretations of the Koran and what it means to follow Islam? (3)Don't they think the rest of the Muslim world has got it wrong?

Yes I know, it is very sad

All of the above is according to them, not necessarily according to the true Islam, and they think only they are right and try to force it on others!

This is what I think only!

 

[ZooGirl02]

You know, I am thinking that perhaps it was just that Islamic empires were spread by the sword but not the religion itself was spread by the sword historically. Now, granted, there have been cases in recent times in which people were forced to convert to Islam or die such as in Syria but I am speaking historically. Also, the actions of a few should not be blamed on the entire group that the few are a member of. That's my opinion anyway. I mean, you wouldn't say that Atheists endorse murder just because some Communist Atheists murdered people in Soviet Russia, right?

 

[Windwalker]

Yes I know, it is very sad

It really does boil down to the heart of the individual in how they read their sacred texts. Someone who has a need to have their views be the accepted ones, will read the scriptures and interpret them with that filter. To them that is what the Koran says. It seems clearly evident to them and they think everyone else is watering it down, not wanting to see what seems so clear to them.

Christianity has this same thing. So do all religions actually. Personally, I judge the value of the religion by how those with a good heart use it to strengthen and support that good heart they bring with them into their beliefs, which will affect how they read the same scriptures, except in more loving and inclusive ways, as opposed to stringent and dogmatic interpretations.

All of the above is according to them, not necessarily according to the true Islam, and they think only they are right and try to force it on others!

What is true religion, but that of the heart. If someone interprets their religion as teaching Peace, then that is true. But its grounded in the individual, not something outside themselves. This is true in all religions.

This is what I think only!

I think the better approach is not who is right and who is wrong, because everyone sincerely believes they are in the right, which must mean others are wrong, but which interpretation promotes the well-being of everyone? That to me is the truer religion, because it comes from the heart of the individual. They're not "wrong", but simply operating at a less beneficial, or more harmful level. Freedom is the foundation of Peace. Forced compliance is not.

 

[paarsurrey]

You know, I am thinking that perhaps it was just that Islamic empires were spread by the sword but not the religion itself was spread by the sword historically. Now, granted, there have been cases in recent times in which people were forced to convert to Islam or die such as in Syria but I am speaking historically. Also, the actions of a few should not be blamed on the entire group that the few are a member of. That's my opinion anyway. I mean, you wouldn't say that Atheists endorse murder just because some Communist Atheists murdered people in Soviet Russia, right?

I agree with you.

Regards

 

[ZooGirl02]

I agree with you.

Regards

Ah okay. Thanks for your reply. I appreciate it.

I am not entirely sure if that is what happened or not but I am kind of leaning towards that.

 

[England my lionheart]

Al Andalus was a good example.

[youtube]FQMNV3IUJuc[/youtube]
Al Andalus (Islamic Spain) - YouTube

That's the past,where can it be observed in the present?

 

[England my lionheart]

Yes I know, it is very sad

All of the above is according to them, not necessarily according to the true Islam, and they think only they are right and try to force it on others!

This is what I think only!

Maybe you can give an example of "true Islam"

 

[YmirGF]

Maybe you can give an example of "true Islam"

The great $64,000 question. It would appear the Muslims are no wiser on this topic than non-Muslims.