Islam spread by the sword? The myth and the reality

Islam spread by sword?

One question is, if it does in reality, and another, if Quran tells that it has to be spread such a way.

In my country, a leader of muslim community, (it is called 'mufti' here), explained once, that jihad has to be understood as 'fighting against evil', and by no means as physically attacking or killing someone. On the other hand there are some islamic leaders in today's real world, who obviously have other explanations and who 'announce' that these and these people/nations has to be attacked.

So, for me, the question is: Who is the first authority in today's Islam, who has a mandate to explain Quran, the doctrine of Quran.

 

If any of you would trully understand history, religions were not spreading because of religion itself. Religions spread as a byproduct of a higher goal. And that higher goal is food, money, land ( resources )

 

I see you dropped the reply I was hoping for and now you started about something else how some of us don't "understand". Great way to debate mate. Actually hang on a second. Where is that sarcastic icon? ....I found it.

 

Why religions spreads, is one question, and why they were established is another.

And to stay only with your 'spread' part...you know it's only half true, what you've said, right?

 

Debate. You are debating ?

You just post questions all the time.

With my post I was actually being on topic Read the first post in this thread and read mine. I think it is pretty much ontopic. You went offtopic with your silly prophet posts ... and yes you proved couple of times in this thread that you just don't get it

 

You're right!!! What was I thinking??? Expecting you to answer a simple question Islam follows blindly the teachings of the prophet Mohammed. You do realise that don't you? It's like asking JWs to separate themselves from the Watchtower. The two always go together.

 

As any other religion and its "fans"

 

You did! You started talking about how Muslims believe the bible to be corrupted, which wasn't the subject AT ALL.

Anyway, I'm going to have to leave it there. You claim it's God's right to judge and indulge in wholesale slaughter whenever he gets pissed off with the creatures he made - but that taking an 8 year old wife is worse! Fair enough. I disagree but there you go.

Have a good weekend everybody, I'm off to play golf.

 

I think it was you who started about the God of the Bible. I think it's an inbuilt thing that Muslims have: whenever someone questions the prophet or the religion of Islam the automated response is to shift the subject to how the God of the Bible is responsible for this that and the other. Anything to take the focus away from the dubious practices of the prophet and the religion he started.

What can I say: it doesn't surprise me after dealing with Muslims on various occassions.

 

Grab, I have finally gotten around to reading your post, and it has provided some food for further thought.

A note - when you cut and paste an entire article by someone else, you really should cite your source and give credit to the author. So, unless you are Sherif Mohammed, I believe you are doing a disservice by not properly crediting the author. If you didn't know who the author was, you should just say so, in my opinion. To not do so comes off looking like these are your thoughts, and this isn't "proper," by this poster's mind, anyway. I also seem to recall someone saying that doing this isn't within DP policy, but I may be wrong. Simply, FYI.

I think it may be helpful to expressly state what Mr. Mohammed's article is about. He has essentially posited two things, and the second is dependent on the first.

1. Islam wasn't spread by the sword;
2. Absent forcible conversion, the reason Islam has "succeeded" so well in the lands where it has held sway is because of some inherently desirable and comparably superior nature, when compared to the indigenous practices or "competitor" religions or philosophies in place at the time of Islam's ascendancy.

I am an atheist, and find nothing "rational," in Islam; indeed, in no religion, so though I find many aspects of many religions fascinating, even instructive, I will forego your second position and deal with the first, which as I understand it from the title of your thread is your thread's intent. Was Islam spread by the sword, or by peaceful means?

No further thoughts now, as although I studied a decent amount of Middle Eastern political economy while at Berkeley, most of my research concerned the modern development of states inside the Middle East, with much less on earlier history (the rise and ascendancy of the Saud family, Nasserite Egypt and its successor regimes, the ba'athists in Syria (and elsewhere), and the resurgence of the clergy in Iran). But this was 20 years ago, so my immediate grasp of the history is somewhat dim.

Just wanted to drop in to say it's an interesting thread, spurring further thought, to say I haven't forgotten about it, and to drop a note about the proper cite.

 

I tend to agree with you, by the way, Iatbm (see http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=181319, post 13 on, and http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=720531&postcount=293 in particular). My reading of history has time and again illustrated that religion (indeed, any ideology) is a convenient way to explain what is really going on on the ground. And that concerns power, among hubs of power, and all it can make happen.

 

Sorry...forgot to drop the link. Many historians and famous intellectuals have also states that Islam spread by the sword is just a myth and fabrication made up by people who don't like the religion and are just trying to find a way to discredit it.