Originally posted by babloyi
It seems that there is a VERY prevalent idea that Islam was spread by the Sword, and held in place by the sword. As far as I can tell, it was
propagated by early Christians, and after a while it was so wholey permeated throughout the Christian Europe as to be taken as the whole and complete
Are you suggesting that it didn't occur?
I respect islam for its tenents insisting on good treatment of non-muslims, as outlined in the koran. But, like every other religion, islam has gone
through periods when it didn't exactly stick to the peaceful message.
as it is a comparison of what the so-called "Christian people" was practicing at the time of their accusations.
The christians, when spreading through europe, would, for example, stuff adders down the throats of unconverting germans. But, in similar situations,
the muslims sacked the yezidi with their army and slaughtered them by the riverside.
Now, one thing that I contend is that Muhammad ever followed the policy of "Convert or Die". Muhammad advocated self-defense, and striving against
It seems that mohammed's take on it was what was in the koran, attack when attacked, fight for whats 'right' and don't let up once someone attacks
you. Which is to say, the man wasn't a pacifist. Jesus was a pacifist, and so was buddha, so, if a person values pacifism, then mohammed isn't for
them. Thats not much of a criticism, imo.
The Quran itself is very clear in this: "There is no compulsion in religion",
Yes, but, like every holy book, people have simply ignored it commands, done what ever they wanted, and then tried to say that the holy book supports
it. The christians did it, and the muslims certainly did it too. Not all of the spread of islam was by the sword, and not all the spread of
christianity was by the sword. But there were certainly acts of unjustified violence perpetrated by both.
One thing is certain. Islam never had an "Inquisition".
There has never been a campaign or policy against apostates within islam???? Haven't the nosarii/alawis suffered when mainstream muslims have tried
to 'get them back on the right path'? And there have certainly been actions by the muslims against pagans and jews within their borders and just
beyond their borders. Certainly, the perpetrators of the violence would claim that it was necessary to 'defend islam', but just as certainly that
wasn't allways the case.
There is an immensely diverse religious mix in what was/is the Islamic world, while in what was once the Christian world, there is only
Christianity and a small amount of Judaism
Indeed, if you compare the two religions, the christian theology is more pacifistic than islam, but the actions have been far more violent and
genocidal than islam.
to say that it was greater than (or even as much as, considering the headstart by Christianity), is unfair.
Indeed. BI lets be clear, the muslims were good fighters, if they weren't, islam would probably be limited to arabia and the arabs.
-Thus, when the Muslims conquered Yezdjard, the drop in all the burden caused Persia to be forever connected to Islam.
Yes but they didn't convert merely because they like the islamic religion, heck, islam in iran/persia is in some ways radically different from the
islam of the early arabs and mohammed. Both islam and christianity spread throughout the world, where christians were in charge, christianity became
the majority religion, where muslims were in charge, islam became the majority religion. This is because the lower classes and the subjects will,
especially over time, adopt the ways of the ruling class, not because the religion is necessarily all that attractive. Also, lets be careful to note,
in the islamic territory, there are many examples of crypto-pagan groups, and in the balkans, crypto-christian groups. These were people that
outwardly adopted the islamic religion, and when the ruling muslim elite came to town for administrative tasks, they'd put up an act of being
mainstream muslims. As soon as they'd leave, they'd bring the win out from the basement and take the veils off. The balkans especially had many
instances where people would flip flop between being muslims and christians, depending on who was in ascendancy or making demands at the time, muslims
or orthodox christians.
Not to say that Muslims did not have their share of manic bloodthirsty rulers, but they were definitely a minority.
I don't know if I would say that, thats debateable. But certainly, islam is far less violent in practice than christianity.
But, there is also another major factor here. Christianity was at its most violent when it was in the dark ages, this was the period in which the
knowledge of the classical civilization was lost. So europeans lived as savages. The muslims at the time managed to preserve that learning, that
classical civilization, and incorporate it into their own culture and rule, and because of it they were civilized.
Over time, the exact oppositte has occured, the muslim knowledge went stagnant, and the west re-discovered the classical knowledge. Now its the
muslims in the middle east that live in a savage dark age. To be really fair, we can say that christianity spread with far more violence than islam,
and that christianity destroyed all other religions that it could. After that, christianity became basically as
violent as islam is
(more or less, keeping in mind that not all of islam is represented by radical islam, just like not all christendom was made uop of
It's even more unfair that hundreds of years later, this lie should still be believed.
The lie is that islam, as a religion, demands violence against non-muslims, and that islam has a more bloody history than christianity. But its not a
lie to say that islam spread, like christianity, partly through the sword, either through forced conversions, or simply because the muslims came to
rule an area and then people slowly converted over to it.
He told my pastor this, "Why don't you stupid christians just give up, Islam is going to take over the world!"
Thats really irrelevant. Thats like taking the statements of an ignorant crusading 'knight' and taking it for the message of jesus.
The first part was composed of peaceful verses and he presented it to people. It was rejected, so he then comprised more, and this new part
promotes violence and conquering and the sword as the way to spread Islam
This is untrue. Mohammed was persecuted by pagan arabs from mecca. There are portions of the koran that deal with this time, and its a violent time.
Thats what happens during a persecution. The other 'part' of the koran is supposed to be from when they were in ascendancy in medina, unmolested by
their neighbhors, and thus its peaceful.
This is like the gospels from when jesus was around, when the christians weren't being rounded up and destroyed, compared to the Book of the
Revelation of St. John. It doesn't mean that christians 'rejected' the message of jesus, and then their leaders issued a new book that talks about
killing all the nonbeleivers in the world.
That's what I have also learned about first wife. She was rich, money is a powerful intoxicant.
How is this relevant?
The concept of a 'love marriage' only came into real existence recently in the west. Before that, christians made arraigned marriages for political
and economic gain, just like arabs, just like hindus, just like everyone else in the world. What does it matter if mohammed married some widow because
she was powerful??? Mohammed is just some guy
. Arabs at the time had multiple wives, just like the ancient hebrews, that was the custom of the
old semites, to live as a wandering tribe, taking what was needed when it was needed, and having lots of wives to make yourself rich and have lots of