Did islam spread by force, swords or guns? (verses, hell)

Originally Posted by Khalif

The original written Qur'an does not exist and could not have existed for over 14 centuries. It exists in memory only now as has been for the past 14 centuries.

The Qur'an is the best history as to how it started with one man and kept spreading for the next 22 years. The contemporaneous accounts cannot contradict the Qur'an. The rest is not necessarily history. Islam begins with the Qur'an and will end with the Qur'an. Anything outside the Qur'an is not Islam nor is basis for Islam as known to the outside world.

Well, if you can't understand the example of Europe, right in front of you, and want to stick to your original imagination, there is nothing I can do to help you.

Well if you want to stick to your belief so be it! The fact is they argued over what was in fact the story, gathered up sayings and DECIDED on what was FACT and NOT FACT. Yeah right! So much for memorization. Enough said.

[Khalif]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Well if you want to stick to your belief so be it! The fact is they argued over what was in fact the story, gathered up sayings and DECIDED on what was FACT and NOT FACT. Yeah right! So much for memorization. Enough said.

I think you are not sure whether to describe hadith or the Qur'an. Please keep in mind that the Qur'an was written down and memorized as it was revealed in portions over a period of 22 years during the life of the messenger. That is the basis of Islam.

You are describing here the writing of the hadith books over two centuries later. Hadith books are not from Allah; only the Qur''an is.

[Stitch49]

Originally Posted by weaam

The unequivocal and emphatic answer is NO! The Qur'an declares:
"Let there be no compulsion (or coercion) in the religion (Islam). The right direction is distinctly clear from error." (2:256)

\
Here is a good study of the question of the spread of Islam by a Christian missionary, T. W. Arnold:
"...of any organized attempt to force the acceptance of Islam on the non-Muslim population, or of any systematic persecution intended to stamp out the Christian religion, we hear nothing. Had the caliphs chosen to adopt either course of action, they might have swept away Christianity as easily as Ferdinand and Isabella drove Islam out of Spain, or Louis XIV made Protestantism penal in France, or the Jews were kept out of England for 350 years. The Eastern Churches in Asia were entirely cut off from communion with the rest of Christiandom throughout which no one would have been found to lift a finger on their behalf, as heretical communions. So that the very survival of these Churches to the present day is a strong proof of the generally tolerant attitude of Mohammedan [sic] governments towards them" (8).


Jihad Explained

history says otherwise. Muslim armies left Arabia shortly after Mohamed's death and conquered their way via the holy land across northern Africa and then across to Spain and France. This is simple history. No mystery, no controversy. Just 100 years after the death of Mohamed, the Muslim invasion was finally stopped at Tours, France. It can't be denied.

Before that, Mohamed consolidated his power in the Arabian Peninsula in a series of raids and battles. He had no enemies not of his own making. I'm aware of the claims that he had to flee Mecca for his life, but that doesn't make any sense. He spent 12 fruitless years trying to convince the Meccans that he was God's apostle, and then, IMO, he simply left for greener pastures in Yathrib. The rest is simple history.

[Khalif]

Thanks for your opinion.
This topic has been discussed many times and at length.
Islam is still spreading through Europe and the far East but not with force, swords or guns.
As for the Islamic principles, there can be no compulsion in religion one way or the other (Qur'an 2:256). Religion can't be forced upon anyone. The person will give it up at the very first opportunity if it was forced upon him.

[Stitch49]

There was no opinion, only verifiable historical fact. During the first centuries of Islam it was spread by force where necessary.

Verse 2:256 does not address the issue of Islamic rule being forcibly imposed. The conquests happened. Islamic rule was imposed on people. We both know that. Conquered people were not, as you correctly say, forced to convert, but if they chose to keep their religion they were forced to live in second class status and to pay the protection fee (jizyah). This choice is clearly given in verse 9:29, which became the template for 'inviting' people to Islam.

Originally Posted by Stitch49

There was no opinion, only verifiable historical fact. During the first centuries of Islam it was spread by force where necessary.

Verse 2:256 does not address the issue of Islamic rule being forcibly imposed. The conquests happened. Islamic rule was imposed on people. We both know that. Conquered people were not, as you correctly say, forced to convert, but if they chose to keep their religion they were forced to live in second class status and to pay the protection fee (jizyah). This choice is clearly given in verse 9:29, which became the template for 'inviting' people to Islam.

Yep, and if anyone thinks this type of status does not led to injustices of those on the margins and lower status they are idiots. This is why the 1st Amendment tot he US Constitution is so necessary. Anytime religion is in power there is less freedom and justice.

[Khalif]

Originally Posted by Stitch49

There was no opinion, only verifiable historical fact. During the first centuries of Islam it was spread by force where necessary.

Spread of Muslim rule is not the same as spread of Islam.

There is no verifiable fact that "Islam" was spread by force, sword or gun.

Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in “Young India”, 1924:

“I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind… I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet’s biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.”

Originally Posted by Stitch49

Verse 2:256 does not address the issue of Islamic rule being forcibly imposed. The conquests happened. Islamic rule was imposed on people. We both know that.

You are here discussing Islam. Qur'an 2:256 is part of Islam. It clearly says, "No compulsion in religion". So we can't compel anyone to come into Islam nor can we be compelled to come out of it. That's the Islamic principle.

Originally Posted by Stitch49

Conquered people were not, as you correctly say, forced to convert, but if they chose to keep their religion they were forced to live in second class status and to pay the protection fee (jizyah).

Paying the tax for their protection doesn't make one second class citizen. It makes them protected citizens. Muslims were paying Zakat but this could not be forced upon non-muslims. Did non-muslims want free protection and no obligations to pay for it?
This is another point that illustrates that they were not being forced to accept Islam but allowed to keep their religion.

Originally Posted by Stitch49

This choice is clearly given in verse 9:29, which became the template for 'inviting' people to Islam.

No. There was no compulsion to join Islam. The tax (Jizyah) was imposed only after Islam and Muslims were attacked by them and failed. Muslims still had to protect them.
The other option would have been for the non-muslims to pay the Zakat just as Muslims have to pay and join the military service just like Muslims. In that case you would have been saying here today that Shariah law was forced upon the non-muslims. No?

[Stitch49]

Spread of Muslim rule is not the same as spread of Islam.

There is no verifiable fact that "Islam" was spread by force, sword or gun.

Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in “Young India”, 1924:

“I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind… I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet’s biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.”

Of course it's the same thing. That's how every empire that ever existed works. A conqueror prevails and then rules. That's the whole point of creating empires.

Gandhi's version does not match with the undeniable historical account. Try reading "The Great Arab Conquests" by Hugh Kennedy. He lays it all out in non-judgemental cold hard fact.

You are here discussing Islam. Qur'an 2:256 is part of Islam. It clearly says, "No compulsion in religion". So we can't compel anyone to come into Islam nor can we be compelled to come out of it. That's the Islamic principle.

Asked and answered. I very clearly explained that forcing people to join Islam was not done. NOT done. They were, however, forced to accept Islamic rule after being conquered by military means and to live as dhimmi and pay the jizyah.

Paying the tax for their protection doesn't make one second class citizen. It makes them protected citizens. Muslims were paying Zakat but this could not be forced upon non-muslims. Did non-muslims want free protection and no obligations to pay for it?

I'm sure they would rather to not have been conquered in the first place. And yes, it means living as dhimmi. How can you deny that?

The tax (Jizyah) was imposed only after Islam and Muslims were attacked by them and failed. Muslims still had to protect them.

No foreign army ever invaded the Arabian Peninsula. The Muslim army left the peninsula and began attacking its neighbors. They were the raiders. Are you trying to tell me that they went all the way to France because they had to defend themselves?

The other option would have been for the non-muslims to pay the Zakat just as Muslims have to pay and join the military service just like Muslims. In that case you would have been saying here today that Shariah law was forced upon the non-muslims. No?

No, the other option would have been for the Muslims to not have embarked on a campaign of conquest, and just left those people alone.

[Khalif]

OK, now you are not talking about spread of Islam but military conquests.

So you have inadvertently agreed that Islam was not spread by force. Thanks. Peace.

[Stitch49]

No. I'm talking about the spread of the Islamic Empire (and therefore of Islam) by military conquests. Conquered peoples had to live under Islamic rule.

But, you know this. My guess is that you just don't want to admit it.