Islam: How was it spread?

[anakin]

if you support jizya, then you very well be able to accept the concepts of apartheid and other racist atrocities committed by European colonists.
any sort of segregation just because you are born into something is plain wrong.

 

[amateurdentist]

you check the historians i mentioned...and also check their standing

and here is what Aurengzeb says about Jazya himself:

View attachment 27853

If he said it then it was wrong. that is not the reason for collecting the jizya.

and you also check the authenticity of Alexander Hamilton and other historians in the link I gave you. He was a british historian who spent years living in Aurengzebs India, therefore he is an eye-witness to the happenings in india during that time period

 

[amateurdentist]

By why did you mention war-tax on Muslims because it has only historical context and not part of Shariah? Jizya, on the other hand, is an essential part of Shariah/Fiqh.

If you are talking about history, how many rulers imposed war-tax on Muslims for not participating in Farz-ul-Kifayah jihad?

war tax was the norm in all pre-modern muslim states. Muslim citizens who were not in the army paid an extra tax. therefore it is relevant

I repeat it is entirely possible that aurengzeb imposed other crippling taxes to force people to convert but jizya couldnot have been the reason. But he was one out of the many muslim rulers of india and also in the rest of the world, most of who were complete opposites of him. Why concentrate on the worst example and use him as an example of typical muslim policy?

What BZ is trying to say is that it was jizya. It is well known that Aurengzeb imposed new taxes especially on his non-muslim subjects to finance his expansions and wars and also partly to induce them to accept islam.
The aim of jizya was never to induce people to accept islam. It was a symbol of the subjugation of the dhimmi to the Muslim state.

 

[shakil]

war tax was the norm in all pre-modern muslim states.

Just to add to my knowledge, can you name me any books in which "war tax" on Muslims is mentioned?

By the way, the more I look in history books, the more I am surprised that conversion seems to be such a big issue for Muslim rules (except Akbar). I guess we need more quotes from books to make this thread worthwhile.

 

[shakil]

Apparently, rich non-Muslims had to pay wealth tax in addition to Jizya to compensate for Zakat paid by Muslims.

(This is taken from "The rightly guided caliph" by Dr Ahmed Zidan)

 

[Black Zero]

If he said it then it was wrong. that is not the reason for collecting the jizya.

He (aurengzeb) himself reasoned this for Jazya

 

[amateurdentist]

Just to add to my knowledge, can you name me any books in which "war tax" on Muslims is mentioned?

By the way, the more I look in history books, the more I am surprised that conversion seems to be such a big issue for Muslim rules (except Akbar). I guess we need more quotes from books to make this thread worthwhile.

This policy of shah jahan is seedy but it doesnot come under the definition of compulsion. This was a political move as much as religious. More muslim subjects mean more obedient subjects.

Apparently, rich non-Muslims had to pay wealth tax in addition to Jizya to compensate for Zakat paid by Muslims.

(This is taken from "The rightly guided caliph" by Dr Ahmed Zidan)

That is correct. these were the basic taxes imposed by Umar. Non-muslim merchants paid jizya+ tax inlieu of zakat

 

[amateurdentist]

He (aurengzeb) himself reasoned this for Jazya

yes. he was a king. his motives were as much political as religious. In this case, he was misinterpreting the jizya tax

 

[anakin]

war tax was the norm in all pre-modern muslim states. Muslim citizens who were not in the army paid an extra tax. therefore it is relevant

I repeat it is entirely possible that aurengzeb imposed other crippling taxes to force people to convert but jizya couldnot have been the reason. But he was one out of the many muslim rulers of india and also in the rest of the world, most of who were complete opposites of him. Why concentrate on the worst example and use him as an example of typical muslim policy?.

his policies gave birth to the 5th largest organised religion in the world. that's a point worth discussing.

 

[Garuda]

yes. he was a king. his motives were as much political as religious. In this case, he was misinterpreting the jizya tax

You can't completely distant actions of muslims (kings or some ppl) from religion. We all know religion may not wanted this.

But the religion is as it's follower use it or interpret it.

So muslim kings used Jizya as a tool to convert non-muslims. Whether Islam as a religion wanted that or not doesn't matter as religion is not someone who applies itself. The followers are responsible to apply it.

 

[amateurdentist]

his policies gave birth to the 5th largest organised religion in the world. that's a point worth discussing.

you should open a thread. Sikhism-how it was spread

 

[amateurdentist]

You can't completely distant actions of muslims (kings or some ppl) from religion. We all know religion may not wanted this.

But the religion is as it's follower use it or interpret it.

So muslim kings used Jizya as a tool to convert non-muslims. Whether Islam as a religion wanted that or not doesn't matter as religion is not someone who applies itself. The followers are responsible to apply it.

ok i agree with this

but tell me this(hypothetical scenario)
if modi becomes the PM of India in the near future, would it be fair for future historians to record that indian "democracy" was a cover for intolerant hindus who carried out pogroms against Muslims?

point is
he was just one of the many muslim rulers in india and most of them never implemented any of his policies. And I am not even considering countless other muslim rulers who were nothing like him

 

[Garuda]

ok i agree with this

but tell me this(hypothetical scenario)
if modi becomes the PM of India in the near future, would it be fair for future historians to record that indian "democracy" was a cover for intolerant hindus who carried out pogroms against Muslims?

point is
he was just one of the many muslim rulers in india and most of them never implemented any of his policies. And I am not even considering countless other muslim rulers who were nothing like him

If you get more instance of modi (in the history of Indian democracy), don't you think ppl would be right to come to that conclusion ?

A king/ruler rules for many more years that one CM/PM (who has very limited period and also is not a dictator like a king).

But again to answer your hypothetical question, if we get more instances of such thing happening then others looking from outside would be right to say that coclusion.

 

[amateurdentist]

If you get more instance of modi (in the history of Indian democracy), don't you think ppl would be right to come to that conclusion ?

A king/ruler rules for many more years that one CM/PM (who has very limited period and also is not a dictator like a king).

But again to answer your hypothetical question, if we get more instances of such thing happening then others looking from outside would be right to say that coclusion.

I would say, come to that conclusion when actions like Modis come to be an accepted part of india's constitution.

You should read about the policies of the Arab Caliphs who ruled the islamic world from 632-1258 and Ottoman Sultans from 1299-1920. very different policies from those of Aurengzeb.

The mughals were descendants of the Mongols and most muslim dynasties of india were of Afghan/Central Asian descent. These people were influenced by their culture as much as their religion. Mongols and turks have always been rather ruthless rulers. Alot of their practices were influenced by their culture and had nothing to do with their religion.e.g. their almost "dieficiation" of their kings i.e. kissing the ground before a seated king and the high-handed treatment of their non-muslim subjects

 

[anakin]

ok i agree with this

but tell me this(hypothetical scenario)
if modi becomes the PM of India in the near future, would it be fair for future historians to record that indian "democracy" was a cover for intolerant hindus who carried out pogroms against Muslims?

point is
he was just one of the many muslim rulers in india and most of them never implemented any of his policies. And I am not even considering countless other muslim rulers who were nothing like him

India is regarded as one of the most successful democracies born after world war 2. there have been hiccups but constitutional framework has been good enough to ensure relatively free elections.

back to topic
for the initial years this is what historians say:
Conversion initially was neither required nor necessarily wished for: "(The Arab conquerors) did not require the conversion as much as the subordination of non-Muslim peoples. At the outset, they were hostile to conversions because new Muslims diluted the economic and status advantages of the Arabs."

 

[Garuda]

I would say, come to that conclusion when actions like Modis come to be an accepted part of india's constitution.

You should read about the policies of the Arab Caliphs who ruled the islamic world from 632-1258 and Ottoman Sultans from 1299-1920. very different policies from those of Aurengzeb.

The mughals were descendants of the Mongols and most muslim dynasties of india were of Afghan/Central Asian descent. These people were influenced by their culture as much as their religion. Mongols and turks have always been rather ruthless rulers. Alot of their practices were influenced by their culture and had nothing to do with their religion.e.g. their almost "dieficiation" of their kings i.e. kissing the ground before a seated king and the high-handed treatment of their non-muslim subjects

Well, then nothing can ever be wrong. We can always write something is constitution but do differently.

People will look at things how its being done rather than what is writen as rule.

Every constitution like every religion has all the good things writen for humans. But do all followers or govt follow it ?

So, it must not be in Indian constitution, but history will say that during Modi and XYZ's time such things happened. Same way as you hear ppl say in history Jizya was used for putting pressure for conversion. Whether it was created for that purpose or not.

 

[amateurdentist]

back to topic
for the initial years this is what historians say:
Conversion initially was neither required nor necessarily wished for: "(The Arab conquerors) did not require the conversion as much as the subordination of non-Muslim peoples. At the outset, they were hostile to conversions because new Muslims diluted the economic and status advantages of the Arabs."

exactly. thank you!
that is what i mentioned in my very first or second post in this thread.

jizya was a tool to stop people from converting to islam by most early muslim rulers

 

[amateurdentist]

Well, then nothing can ever be wrong. We can always write something is constitution but do differently.

People will look at things how its being done rather than what is writen as rule.

Every constitution like every religion has all the good things writen for humans. But do all followers or govt follow it ?

So, it must not be in Indian constitution, but history will say that during Modi and XYZ's time such things happened. Same way as you hear ppl say in history Jizya was used for putting pressure for conversion. Whether it was created for that purpose or not.

If history records this then it will be the truth so there is nothing wrong with that. However if history records that from 1947-2018, india was an intolerant society based on only judging 5 years of Modis rule, that would not be history but a lie.

the situation is the same here. Alright Aurengzeb was bad, but the number of rulers who were in opposition to his policies far exceeded those that followed his.

 

[anakin]

exactly. thank you!
that is what i mentioned in my very first or second post in this thread.

jizya was a tool to stop people from converting to islam by most early muslim rulers

to prevent people to convert .. why?? to maintain the supremacy of Arabs.. more muslims meant dilution of their status.
why does conversion to islam meant dilution of status of the Arabs, that very statement talks of discrimination of non-muslims under muslim rulers.

wherever any ruler went he spread his religion by sword, financial or social persecution and it is not unique to Islam, its with all religions.

 

[amateurdentist]

to prevent people to convert .. why?? to maintain the supremacy of Arabs.. more muslims meant dilution of their status.
why does conversion to islam meant dilution of status of the Arabs, that very statement talks of discrimination of non-muslims under muslim rulers.

wherever any ruler went he spread his religion by sword, financial or social persecution and it is not unique to Islam, its with all religions.

ermm it is written in what you posted.. Arab conquerers did not want their non-muslim subjects to convert to islam, so how do you make that out into arabs wanting forced conversions

 

[anakin]

ermm it is written in what you posted.. Arab conquerers did not want their non-muslim subjects to convert to islam, so how do you make that out into arabs wanting forced conversions

i am not talking about direct conversions... the rulers ( not just muslims) would have laws which favoured the people from their own faith, which forces people to switch allegiance.

as for Arabs rulers" why were they worried muslim converts would dilute their status??"

 

[Garuda]

If history records this then it will be the truth so there is nothing wrong with that. However if history records that from 1947-2018, india was an intolerant society based on only judging 5 years of Modis rule, that would not be history but a lie.

the situation is the same here. Alright Aurengzeb was bad, but the number of rulers who were in opposition to his policies far exceeded those that followed his.

I don't think anyone is saying that.

Ppl are saying Jizya was used (during certain times) to help conversion. Akbar didn't use and that fact is also recognized.

 

[amateurdentist]

i am not talking about direct conversions... the rulers ( not just muslims) would have laws which favoured the people from their own faith, which forces people to switch allegiance.

non-muslims lived by their own laws and religion and were not judged by the sharia unless a muslim was involved

as for Arabs rulers" why were they worried muslim converts would dilute their status??"

Arabs considered themselves to be superior to non-Arabs. They believed only arabs could have done what they did in a very short time. When you conquer one third of the known world in less than a century, it is entirely understandable (though wrong) belief.
Having said that some of the earliest muslim generals,scientists and leaders were black freed-slaves, fire-worshippers, christians and jews

 

[amateurdentist]

I don't think anyone is saying that.

Ppl are saying Jizya was used (during certain times) to help conversion. Akbar didn't use and that fact is also recognized.

you clearly have missed gems from BZ, golimar and a few others.
I know you arent saying that.
Dont you find prejudice coming into this debate when probably more than half the thread is about aurengzeb when the thread was titled "Islam-How was it spread"

 

[Garuda]

you clearly have missed gems from BZ, golimar and a few others.
I know you arent saying that.
Dont you find prejudice coming into this debate when probably more than half the thread is about aurengzeb when the thread was titled "Islam-How was it spread"

My friend, you will find a spectrum of opinion in every thread.

Don't you find other end of spectrum in this thread where ppl think force was never used ? I have to post what I feel and you should post what you feel as reality

 

[anakin]

non-muslims lived by their own laws and religion and were not judged by the sharia unless a muslim was involved



Arabs considered themselves to be superior to non-Arabs. They believed only arabs could have done what they did in a very short time. When you conquer one third of the known world in less than a century, it is entirely understandable (though wrong) belief.
Having said that some of the earliest muslim generals,scientists and leaders were black freed-slaves, fire-worshippers, christians and jews

not really answer for my query..
"I am wondering why a non-Arab if converted to Islam would lead to dilution of the status of Arabs?"

 

[amateurdentist]

My friend, you will find a spectrum of opinion in every thread.

Don't you find other end of spectrum in this thread where ppl think force was never used ? I have to post what I feel and you should post what you feel as reality

When certain verses of the Quran and certain Hadith are posted in the wrong context or out of it, the record has to be set straight. There are many visitors to this site, who dont have any real knowledge about islam who would take these posts seriously thereby forming the wrong idea about islam in their mind

 

[Garuda]

When certain verses of the Quran and certain Hadith are posted in the wrong context or out of it, the record has to be set straight. There are many visitors to this site, who dont have any real knowledge about islam who would take these posts seriously thereby forming the wrong idea about islam in their mind

Fair enough.

Atleast you agree to what I am saying that some section of history says that it was used to help conversion.

Now, its your call whether you want to go to other extreme to counter someone else's other extreme view. My view is things can be set straight if you give the right picture instead of you moving to other end of spectrum.

But again your call.

 

[Solid Snake]

not really answer for my query..
"I am wondering why a non-Arab if converted to Islam would lead to dilution of the status of Arabs?"

I think that some of the earlier muslim rulers, specifically the Umayads, felt that Islam was delivered by an Arab and should therefore be the religion of the Arabs.

A bit like Judaism was a religion for a specific people and so is known as much as a race as well as a faith.

Obviously this was completely contrary to the Prophet's (PBUH) teachings (his final sermon as well as some of his companions being non-arabs being pertinent examples)

 

[anakin]

I think that some of the earlier muslim rulers, specifically the Umayads, felt that Islam was delivered by an Arab and should therefore be the religion of the Arabs.

A bit like Judaism was a religion for a specific people and so is known as much as a race as well as a faith.

Obviously this was completely contrary to the Prophet's (PBUH) teachings (his final sermon as well as some of his companions being non-arabs being pertinent examples)

The status is talked of economics and social terms. As if being a muslim uplifted ones social status in the society under a muslim king.

 

[amateurdentist]

The status is talked of economics and social terms. As if being a muslim uplifted ones social status in the society under a muslim king.

that cannot be true. there were very wealthy non-muslims in the arab empires just like there were wealthy muslims. many christians and jews held high positions in the court of the Ummayad Caliphs for example St. John the Damascene who was poet for Yazid.
Ameer Muawiya's personal physician was a christian and so were some of his ministers.
Many Abbasid caliphs had zoroasterian viziers. Christian and jewish scientists were always in the divan/court of Muslim caliphs and were patronized for their work and honored

 

[anakin]

that cannot be true. there were very wealthy non-muslims in the arab empires just like there were wealthy muslims. many christians and jews held high positions in the court of the Ummayad Caliphs for example St. John the Damascene who was poet for Yazid.
Ameer Muawiya's personal physician was a christian and so were some of his ministers.
Many Abbasid caliphs had zoroasterian viziers. Christian and jewish scientists were always in the divan/court of Muslim caliphs and were patronized for their work and honored

don't really have a weblink .. wiki gives this as a reference

Lapidus, Ira M. 2002, A History of Islamic Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

 

[Manveer]

513 replies including this .Friends do we have a conclusion which can be stated in under 50 words ?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

513 replies including this .Friends do we have a conclusion which can be stated in under 50 words ?

Yes. Those were barbaric times by today's standards. Whether it was Islam or Christianity, swords were sometimes used, whether to spread peace, religion or marmalade. The Mughals attempted to stop the Hindu practice of burning widows but it was the British who banned it with moderate success.

 

[anakin]

Even with the sword Muslims were powerless to stop the Hindu custom of murdering female children. This trend still continues to this day as confirmed by this census 2011

http://genderbytes.wordpress.com/20...daughter-killers-affirms-india’s-2011-census/

http://tribune.com.pk/story/105019/infanticide-on-the-rise-in-pakistan-statistics/

i wonder how the "Hindu" custom got into devout muslims of pakistan?

 

[Canistani Hero]

Please maintain a civilized discussion. Any offensive/insulting comment directed towards another poster or their beliefs will not be tolerated.

 

[youboy]

 

[youboy]

 

[Buffet]

Islam spread in tiny local Arab population during his lifetime. It spread all over the world in last 1200-1300 years. Are we trying to find out how it spread in first 10-20 years or how it spread in last 1300 years? If it is later then above quotes about Prophet does not add much to current discussion.

 

[the Great Khan]

http://tribune.com.pk/story/105019/infanticide-on-the-rise-in-pakistan-statistics/

i wonder how the "Hindu" custom got into devout muslims of pakistan?

"devout" Muslims dont do this kind of stuff...its a contradiction! and by the way your really starting to tick me off!!..I think im gonna complain about certain users!! had enough of this garbage!!

 

[James]

Overall it's been a pretty good thread. Very educational.

 

[amateurdentist]

Islam spread in tiny local Arab population during his lifetime. It spread all over the world in last 1200-1300 years. Are we trying to find out how it spread in first 10-20 years or how it spread in last 1300 years? If it is later then above quotes about Prophet does not add much to current discussion.

another distinction has to be made between the spread of islam in india and spread of islam under the Arab Caliphates, and in malay,java,eastern coast of africa upto mazambique.

While the fact remains true that in india, sometimes force was used in conversion especially by Aurengzeb, under the arab caliphates islam wasnt spread by sword at all. In fact the early caliphs discouraged conversion of conquered subjects into islam.
It was long after a change of regime, from the Ummayyads to the Abbasids that the majority of the population of the arab empire became muslim.Evidence of this can be found in Muslim spain. Despite ruling for 800 years, the arabs, moors and berbers where the main muslim presence in spain and very small percentage of local population accepted islam. And when the jews were expelled from spain(when the muslim rule ended) they found refuge in muslim ottoman empire. The jews still remember the end of muslim rule and their expulsion as a great tragedy.

What is missing in this thread is discussion of how islam spread during its initial years under the Arab Caliphs, when it was peaceful conversion. We have concentrated too long on Aurengzeb and using the exception, if you will, to justify the myth of forceful spread of Islam.

 

[James]

5 years on. Very interesting thread to read through. Lots of good, solid, educational posting to enjoy.

And in the wider sense - Islam continues to spread. Throughout the world.

I have been researching religion intently for a long time. I never felt compelled by a sword. And, whisper it, but I am most impressed by Islam. God has become more and more of a part of my life over time.

I wonder if I will become a Muslim one day.

 

[enkidu_]

One of the leading British orientalists of the last century, Sir Thomas W. Arnold, penned a book, "The spread of Islam", where he details, region-wise, the spread of Islam.

Keep in mind that the largest Christian countries today are found in Americas, where we know how the religion was spread, while the largest Islamic countries are Indonesia and Malaysia, where not even a single soldier in the name of Islam ever sat foot.

More recently you can see that a coalition of the world's best armies can't enforce "democracy" on Iraqis and Afghans ; do you seriously think a bunch of Arabs would have forced "prideful" populations such as Berbers, Persians, etc to change their thousands years old faith "by force" ? Go try to convert a hundred (not even a thousand or a million) of, let's say, Uzbeks to Buddhism, and see how many of them 1) accept, 2) keep the faith and 3) keep it strongly enough to produce Islamic scholar in a matter of one or two generations.

A recent article which might be of interest :

(...)
Similarly, the late Marshall Hodgson wrote in his ground-breaking work The Venture of Islam that “[t]here was no attempt [by the Muslims] at converting the peoples of the [conquered] imperial territories, who practically all adhered to some form of confessional religion already… In the chiefly non-Arab agricultural lands, the object was not conversion but rule… The superiority of Islam as religion, and therefore in providing for social order, would justify Muslim rule; would justify the simple, fair-dealing Muslims in replacing the privileged and oppressive representatives of the older, corrupted allegiances…” [3]
(...)
Other historians confirm that, in the regions conquered in the first century of the Muslim conquests (i.e. 632-732), Islam didn’t become a majority religion until 850-1050. Nearly all of Iran, for example, had been conquered by 705; however, the empirical research of Richard Bulliet has shown that it was only in the mid-9th century that the percentage of Muslims in Iran’s population reached 50%, and it took nearly another century after that for that figure to hit 75%. [8] Similarly, the region that makes up today’s Albania was gradually conquered by the Ottomans over the course of the 15th century, but conversion to Islam only really took off in the second half of the 17th century, nearly 200 years later. [9] As some historians have pointed out, “if forced conversion to Islam had been the impetus behind the conquests, they were a miserable failure.”
(...)

https://themuslimvibe.com/muslim-cu...ion-of-islam-historically-spread-by-the-sword

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

5 years on. Very interesting thread to read through. Lots of good, solid, educational posting to enjoy.

And in the wider sense - Islam continues to spread. Throughout the world.

I have been researching religion intently for a long time. I never felt compelled by a sword. And, whisper it, but I am most impressed by Islam. God has become more and more of a part of my life over time.

I wonder if I will become a Muslim one day.

Read :


1. " Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam "

2. " Victory of Islam "

You can find online free versions of both books aswell as English Audio Books.

 

[troodon]

Islamic countries should also allow other religions a free hand to propagate their own beliefs. There should be an even contest.

Right now, Islam uses democracy to spread its roots. But does not tolerate other religions to spread their roots in Islamic countries. Not a fair contest.

 

[Black Zero]

Simple google search will give you the answer of this simple question:

After Hijra (622 AD), in ten years, mulims led expeditions against the Jews and non believers of Hujaz (all but couple were offensive expiditions)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad

Conquest of Syria: 634–641
Conquest of Egypt: 639–642
Conquest of Mesopotamia and Persia: 633–651
Conquest of Sindh: 711–714
Conquest of the Maghreb (Current North African Muslims countries, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco)) : 647–742
Conquest of Hispania and Septimania: 711–721
Conquest of Transoxiana: 673–751


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early...t_of_Hispania_and_Septimania:_711.E2.80.93721

 

[troodon]

Simple google search will give you the answer of this simple question:

After Hijra (622 AD), in ten years, mulims led expeditions against the Jews and non believers of Hujaz (all but couple were offensive expiditions)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad

Conquest of Syria: 634–641
Conquest of Egypt: 639–642
Conquest of Mesopotamia and Persia: 633–651
Conquest of Sindh: 711–714
Conquest of the Maghreb (Current North African Muslims countries, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco)) : 647–742
Conquest of Hispania and Septimania: 711–721
Conquest of Transoxiana: 673–751


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early...t_of_Hispania_and_Septimania:_711.E2.80.93721

That is how most religions spread.

Fist through bloody conquests. Once establishing a foot hold, use missionary activities and some clever interpretations of the scripts to spread their religion. Intermittently, they also use some scare tactics if people are not budging.

 

[last_knight]

Simple google search will give you the answer of this simple question:

After Hijra (622 AD), in ten years, mulims led expeditions against the Jews and non believers of Hujaz (all but couple were offensive expiditions)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad

Conquest of Syria: 634–641
Conquest of Egypt: 639–642
Conquest of Mesopotamia and Persia: 633–651
Conquest of Sindh: 711–714
Conquest of the Maghreb (Current North African Muslims countries, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco)) : 647–742
Conquest of Hispania and Septimania: 711–721
Conquest of Transoxiana: 673–751


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early...t_of_Hispania_and_Septimania:_711.E2.80.93721

That will explain about Expansion of Boundaries of Islamic Empire. What about conversions to Islam ?

Do we actually believe that conquering the land means conversion ?

 

[troodon]

That will explain about Expansion of Boundaries of Islamic Empire. What about conversions to Islam ?

Do we actually believe that conquering the land means conversion ?

When the rulers convert, people will naturally convert. First the people who are directly working under the king. It will get them more closer to the king/Emperor. Then the whole chain starts converting to keep their position in the hierarchy.

Our faith influences our decision making ability a lot. It pays to share the same belief as your ruler. If the King is an agrressive believer in his faith, then he will give perks to people who share his faith. Will get those people more closer to the king.

Not everyone will always convert. Its not easy to leave your traditional beliefs. For those people the Sufis are there to persuade them. Those Sufis will take out some verses in the religious texts and first equate Allah to Krishna or Shiva or whatever. Then they do some miracles which convinces the village folk (not too difficult to convince them). Then slowly they start converting.

Of course in India, the rigid caste system means the backward communities will always look for some sort of releif. These new Abrahamic faiths will be like a gift from heavens.

I would say its a combination of everything. But everything starts with the sword. You have to first subjugate people before you can introduce the newly brought in faith to the masses.

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

One of the leading British orientalists of the last century, Sir Thomas W. Arnold, penned a book, "The spread of Islam", where he details, region-wise, the spread of Islam.

Keep in mind that the largest Christian countries today are found in Americas, where we know how the religion was spread, while the largest Islamic countries are Indonesia and Malaysia, where not even a single soldier in the name of Islam ever sat foot.

More recently you can see that a coalition of the world's best armies can't enforce "democracy" on Iraqis and Afghans ; do you seriously think a bunch of Arabs would have forced "prideful" populations such as Berbers, Persians, etc to change their thousands years old faith "by force" ? Go try to convert a hundred (not even a thousand or a million) of, let's say, Uzbeks to Buddhism, and see how many of them 1) accept, 2) keep the faith and 3) keep it strongly enough to produce Islamic scholar in a matter of one or two generations.

A recent article which might be of interest :



https://themuslimvibe.com/muslim-cu...ion-of-islam-historically-spread-by-the-sword

That is how most religions spread.

Fist through bloody conquests. Once establishing a foot hold, use missionary activities and some clever interpretations of the scripts to spread their religion. Intermittently, they also use some scare tactics if people are not budging.

My Post from another thread few days ago :



1. Gandhi wrote in Young India: ‘The more I study the more I discover that the strength of Islam does not lie in the sword.'



2. Arya Samajists Pandit Gyanandra Dev Sharma Shastri said:

Biased critics of Islam and especially those who want to provoke Hindu-Muslim riots in the country say that Hazrat Muhammad after acquiring power in Medina could not maintain his facade of mercy and kindness.There he used force and violence and became a murderous prophet to achieve his life-long aim of power, status and wealth. He fell short of his own ideal of patience, moderation and endurance. But this is the view of those observers who are prejudicial and partisan, who are narrow minded and whose eyes are covered by a veil of ignorance. They see fire instead of light, ugliness instead of beauty and evil instead of good. They distort and present every good quality as a great vice. It reflects their own depravity…

The critics are blind. They cannot see that the only ‘sword’ Muhammad wielded was the sword of mercy, compassion, friendship and forgiveness—the sword that conquers enemies and purifies their hearts. His sword was sharper than the sword of steel. 1



3. The editor of the Sat Updaish, wrote:

Some people say that Islam was preached by the sword, but we cannot agree with this view. What is forced on people is soon rejected. Had Islam been imposed on people through oppression, there would have been no Islam today. Why? Because the Prophet of Islam had spiritual power, he loved humanity and he was guided by the ideal of ultimate good. 2



4. The editor of the Vedic Magazine and a former professor of Gurukul, Kangri Ram Dev, said:

Sitting in Medina, Muhammad Sahib (peace be to him) held the Arabs spellbound; he filled them with spiritual strength; strength that makesdevtas [gods] out of men… it is incorrect to say that Islam spread with the force of the sword. It is a fact that the sword was never wielded to propagate Islam. If religion can be spread by force then let anyone try it today. 3



5. Dr D. W. Leitz said:

' All these arguments, advanced to prove that the purpose of jihad was to spread Islam by force, are contradicted by the Quran. The Quran says that the purpose of jihad is to protect mosques, churches, synagogues and cloisters. ' 4



6. Thomas Arnold’s said:

‘Islam has gained its greatest and most lasting missionary triumphs in times and places in which its political power has been weakest.” 5



7. A Sikh journalist wrote :

" In the beginning the Prophet’s enemies made life difficult for him and his followers. So the Prophet asked his followers to leave their homes and migrate to Medina. He preferred migration to fighting his own people, but when oppression went beyond the pale of tolerance he took up his sword in self-defense. Those who believe religion can be spread by force are fools who neither know the ways of religion nor the ways of the world. They are proud of this belief because they are a long, long way away from the Truth. " 6




References:


1. Translated from an Urdu speech by Pundit Shastri at a Gorakhpur (India) meeting, 1928, to commemorate the ProphetÂ’s birth, see Dunya ka Hadi Ghairon ki Nazar Main , 57, 61.


2. Sat Updaish, Lahore, 7 July 1915; see Barguzida Rasul Ghairon Main Maqbul , 12, 13.


3. Prof. Ram Dev, The Prakash , see Burguzida Rasul Ghairon Main Maqbul , 24.



4. D. W. Lenz, Asiatic Quarterly Review , October 1886. Dr Leitz



5. W. Thomas Arnold, The Preaching of Islam: a History of the Propagation of the Muslim Faith , 2nd ed. (London: Constable and Co. Ltd, 1913), 279–80.



6. Literally, ‘The knower of the psyche of the Prophet’, or ‘The observer of the Prophet’s mind’.

 

[Black Zero]

That is how most religions spread.

Fist through bloody conquests. Once establishing a foot hold, use missionary activities and some clever interpretations of the scripts to spread their religion. Intermittently, they also use some scare tactics if people are not budging.

Not true.

Ashoka spread Buddhism several hundred years after the death of Siddhartha.
Same with Christianity, Constantine spread 300 years after the death of Jesus.

While founder of islam, fought 50+ agreesive wars during his last ten years (link provided in previous post)

 

[Black Zero]

That will explain about Expansion of Boundaries of Islamic Empire. What about conversions to Islam ?

Do we actually believe that conquering the land means conversion ?

I do not know if you are familiar with the protocol of jihad. (Explained in several ayahs and hadis )
First option for the poor, indefensible "enemy" is to embrace islam.
Second option is to pay tax (jazya)
Third option to get killed, and get you childern taken as slaves and women and daughter taken as sex slaves.

So it's a fact that islam originally spread by sword.
Just like democracy spread" to Afghanistan and Iraq by cruise missiles.

 

[ShadabFakhar]

I do not know if you are familiar with the protocol of jihad. (Explained in several ayahs and hadis )
First option for the poor, indefensible "enemy" is to embrace islam.
Second option is to pay tax (jazya)
Third option to get killed, and get you childern taken as slaves and women and daughter taken as sex slaves.

So it's a fact that islam originally spread by sword.
Just like democracy spread" to Afghanistan and Iraq by cruise missiles.

Saying Islam spread by the sword is the same as saying democracy was spread by the gun. If you have a system that empowers your nation/state /kingdom you're bound to meet resistance from neighbours. You should also expect certain populations asking you to liberate them from tyranny

To stop at saying "Islam was spread by the sword" is to insinuate that it's a violent religion. It's intended to be melodramatic

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

Saying Islam spread by the sword is the same as saying democracy was spread by the gun. If you have a system that empowers your nation/state /kingdom you're bound to meet resistance from neighbours. You should also expect certain populations asking you to liberate them from tyranny

To stop at saying "Islam was spread by the sword" is to insinuate that it's a violent religion. It's intended to be melodramatic

One of the biggest Hero and Religious Scholars of Pakistan's religious practicing community is who ?

Hazrat Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi sahib


Read his book " Al Jihad Fil Islam "


He has endorsed the Idea that Islam was spread and Islam conquered the world through Sword.

So ? Let's see within our own lines. When these Ex Muslims will quote Maudoodi sahib who has Millions followers, admirers and supporters than what will you do ?

Even on PP there is a thread " who is your favourite religious scholar ? " and many have mentioned Maulana Maodoodi including 14-15 years old Kids to aged Fathers living in West.



What is the Idea/ideology behind MOB Justice ? Same.

The idea is to tame people through force of stick & sword and to render people punishments in public while being the prosecutor, witness & judge all by yourself and to create a living example for generations that " Look if you do this you will be the next in line " so refrain from this.

This has been practiced & enforced by Taliban & ISIS aswell and they call it a duty and a service to Islam & Muslims.


Another Canadian was upset because of Pak Private Tv Channel's EID shows since 4 national tradegies has occured but but Media thrives on business and money and they pay stars heavily for EID shows to earn money. So the already recorded shows were aired on Eid.

Dear Candian Pper wrote this about Showbiz Stars " these guys should be beaten up wherever they are seen so that sense can come into them "

Again this is what ? " MOB Justice Mentality " taught by whom ? Same Ulema e Islam (for me so called)


For me they are so called Ulema e Islam. For me they are Ulema e Soo but for Millions & Millions they are True, Virtuous, Righteous, Learned, beloved, dignified religious scholars of Islam.


Whether it's Ex Muslims, Aethiests, Agnostics, Islamophobes they will keep on quoting religious scholars like Maududi sahib that Islam Spread through Sword & for millions Maudi sahib will remain Champion of Islam.

 

[ShadabFakhar]

One of the biggest Hero and Religious Scholars of Pakistan's religious practicing community is who ?

Hazrat Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi sahib


Read his book " Al Jihad Fil Islam "


He has endorsed the Idea that Islam was spread and Islam conquered the world through Sword.

So ? Let's see within our own lines. When these Ex Muslims will quote Maudoodi sahib who has Millions followers, admirers and supporters than what will you do ?

Even on PP there is a thread " who is your favourite religious scholar ? " and many have mentioned Maulana Maodoodi including 14-15 years old Kids to aged Fathers living in West.



What is the Idea/ideology behind MOB Justice ? Same.

The idea is to tame people through force of stick & sword and to render people punishments in public while being the prosecutor, witness & judge all by yourself and to create a living example for generations that " Look if you do this you will be the next in line " so refrain from this.

This has been practiced & enforced by Taliban & ISIS aswell and they call it a duty and a service to Islam & Muslims.


Another Canadian was upset because of Pak Private Tv Channel's EID shows since 4 national tradegies has occured but but Media thrives on business and money and they pay stars heavily for EID shows to earn money. So the already recorded shows were aired on Eid.

Dear Candian Pper wrote this about Showbiz Stars " these guys should be beaten up wherever they are seen so that sense can come into them "

Again this is what ? " MOB Justice Mentality " taught by whom ? Same Ulema e Islam (for me so called)


For me they are so called Ulema e Islam. For me they are Ulema e Soo but for Millions & Millions they are True, Virtuous, Righteous, Learned, beloved, dignified religious scholars of Islam.


Whether it's Ex Muslims, Aethiests, Agnostics, Islamophobes they will keep on quoting religious scholars like Maududi sahib that Islam Spread through Sword & for millions Maudi sahib will remain Champion of Islam.

I think you're making the same mistake non-Muslims make when analysing Islam. Context plays a massive part, not just on when the ayahs were revealed but in which context they're interpreted.

The Quran deals with both war and peace. In an ideal world where absolute peace prevailed Islam would no doubt advocate pacifism and war would be a transgression. When there's a threat to one's own life and security Islam advocates a militaristic approach, and only if there is an absolute need for a violent jihad.

Maudoodi's books were published during the resistance against the British and then the violence of partition. That may explain the context of his teachings and his followers. If you look at Turkey where there was a long period of peace and stability for Muslims you had Sufis. The subcontinent also had a period of great Sufi mystics, the origin of Qawwalis was for the same reason. The same can be said of Malaysia and Indonesia, many leading Muslim scholars prefer to teach there than in most Muslim countries. Malaysia and Indonesia are better practicing Muslims than most Muslim countries right now and their women are the most 'liberated'. The threat of war makes women feel vulnerable more than men, hence the conservatism of Muslim women in war-torn areas.

As for mob justice, it's not limited to Muslims. To borrow a MayBot reference, strong and stable governments are usually successful at preventing it. If you've read any of the comment sections of the Daily Fail and the The Sun, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

I think you're making the same mistake non-Muslims make when analysing Islam. Context plays a massive part, not just on when the ayahs were revealed but in which context they're interpreted.

I am not sure as to which paragraph of my Post resulted in you saying this about Me ?

Maudoodi's books were published during the resistance against the British and then the violence of partition.

I think you are not aware of Maudoodi's date of birth. There was no resistance (physical) against British in Maudoodi's lifetime. Furthermore, during partition there was no Sword Weapon Jehad and Maududi was amongst those Ahrari's who used to Oppose seperate Homeland for Muslims calling Quaid e Azam as Kafir e Azam. Maududi & his ideologues thought that Muslims of India getting divided would weaken Muslims aswell as Muslim Ummah hence they were all Anti-Pakistan.


" When all methods of persuasion failed, the Prophet Pbuh took to the sword. That sword removed mischief, the impurities of evil and the filth of the soul. The sword did something more—it removed their blindness so they could see the light of truth—and it also cured them of their arrogance: arrogance which prevents people from accepting the truth, stiff necks and proud heads bowed with humility " (Al Jehad Fil Islam)


What was the context here ? Resistence against British or Violence of Partition ?


He infers that Sword was picked up Naoozbillah Min Zaalik for Persuation. Inna Lillah.



And And 1857 Jung e Barbaadi proved Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and few in minority to be Right. History proved that to be fasaad and not jehaad where Muslims suffered thousands of causalties and families got ruined. Ultimately the Invader Britishers left 90 years later with what ? With Dialogue. No matter we keep teaching our children and next generation that 1857 War was Jung e Azaadi & Jehaad etc etc but distorted history would not yield any positive outcome in future. It's time to bow our heads in shame and acknowledge the truth that indeed Sir Syed Ahmed Khan was right.

The same can be said of Malaysia and Indonesia, many leading Muslim scholars prefer to teach there than in most Muslim countries. Malaysia and Indonesia are better practicing Muslims than most Muslim countries right now and their women are the most 'liberated'.

Get a hold of Human Rights reports to see Persecution of Minorities in Indonesia & Malaysia. Don't know what Special you see in those Countries which could be only slightly better than more Extremist Ones. Just women not doing Face Veil doesn't mean they are liberated.


Since 2001 and mostly in last 10 years the World has been gripped with Global Terrorism hence there has been Islamophobea worlwide with hate crimes on the rise but other that it is the West which liberated Muslim women in True sense and not any Muslim Country whatsoever.

 

[ShadabFakhar]

I am not sure as to which paragraph of my Post resulted in you saying this about Me ?

The fact that you jumped on to one book of his about jihad when he has authored on a wide range of subjects. It's also a translation of a paragraph not given in a wider context what he meant. Sounds like a witch-hunt.


I think you are not aware of Maudoodi's date of birth. There was no resistance (physical) against British in Maudoodi's lifetime. Furthermore, during partition there was no Sword Weapon Jehad and Maududi was amongst those Ahrari's who used to Oppose seperate Homeland for Muslims calling Quaid e Azam as Kafir e Azam. Maududi & his ideologues thought that Muslims of India getting divided would weaken Muslims aswell as Muslim Ummah hence they were all Anti-Pakistan.

I know when Mawdoodi was born and he wrote much against colonialism and his rejection of even partition was because of the hatred towards the same. Muslims obviously refer to verses of jihad to when there's turmoil. If you're inferring that no physical resistance would have meant the British would have left I believe you're grossly mistaken. Read Churchill's and British accounts and you'll realise they couldn't afford a war. If there was no Mawdoodi rhetoric and threat of violence, Britain would have extended their stay.


It may sound controversial but partition might not have been the best option at the time. Syed Ahmad Khan was a Freemason, naturally he would warm to the British colonialists. Did you know he was also related to Mawdoodi? He was pro-British and encouraged people to join the Colonialist army. Britain needed division to ensure the commonwealth remained reliant upon them. I don't blame Mawdoodi for thinking like that, if anything he showed he could go reach beyond religious bias . Nonetheless, leaders like Modi have vindicated The Quaid's decision.



What was the context here ? Resistence against British or Violence of Partition ?

Colonialist turmoil

He infers that Sword was picked up Naoozbillah Min Zaalik for Persuation. Inna Lillah.

Don't know about that from what your pasted


And 1857 Jung e Barbaadi proved Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and few in minority to be Right. History proved that to be fasaad and not jehaad where Muslims suffered thousands of causalties and families got ruined. Ultimately the Invader Britishers left 90 years later with what ? With Dialogue. No matter we keep teaching our children and next generation that 1857 War was Jung e Azaadi & Jehaad etc etc but distorted history would not yield any positive outcome in future. It's time to bow our heads in shame and acknowledge the truth that indeed Sir Syed Ahmed Khan was right.

Read above. War is not pleasant but required sometimes for freedom.



Get a hold of Human Rights reports to see Persecution of Minorities in Indonesia & Malaysia. Don't know what Special you see in those Countries which could be only slightly better than more Extremist Ones. Just women not doing Face Veil doesn't mean they are liberated.

Malaysia and Indonesia are okay relatively speaking. They accepted refugees recently, minorities.


Since 2001 and mostly in last 10 years the World has been gripped with Global Terrorism hence there has been Islamophobea worlwide with hate crimes on the rise but other that it is the West which liberated Muslim women in True sense and not any Muslim Country whatsoever.

One man's liberation is another man's exploitation. West has done both good and bad. This is partly the reason why Mawdoodi considered Britain's stance on this quite flawed. He couldn't see that Britain could possibly have been a force for good due to his experiences and thus influenced his thoughts on women's freedoms and Islamic interpretation.

 

[Black Zero]

One of the biggest Hero and Religious Scholars of Pakistan's religious practicing community is who ?

Hazrat Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi sahib


Read his book " Al Jihad Fil Islam "


He has endorsed the Idea that Islam was spread and Islam conquered the world through Sword.

So ? Let's see within our own lines. When these Ex Muslims will quote Maudoodi sahib who has Millions followers, admirers and supporters than what will you do ?

Even on PP there is a thread " who is your favourite religious scholar ? " and many have mentioned Maulana Maodoodi including 14-15 years old Kids to aged Fathers living in West.



What is the Idea/ideology behind MOB Justice ? Same.

The idea is to tame people through force of stick & sword and to render people punishments in public while being the prosecutor, witness & judge all by yourself and to create a living example for generations that " Look if you do this you will be the next in line " so refrain from this.

This has been practiced & enforced by Taliban & ISIS aswell and they call it a duty and a service to Islam & Muslims.


Another Canadian was upset because of Pak Private Tv Channel's EID shows since 4 national tradegies has occured but but Media thrives on business and money and they pay stars heavily for EID shows to earn money. So the already recorded shows were aired on Eid.

Dear Candian Pper wrote this about Showbiz Stars " these guys should be beaten up wherever they are seen so that sense can come into them "

Again this is what ? " MOB Justice Mentality " taught by whom ? Same Ulema e Islam (for me so called)


For me they are so called Ulema e Islam. For me they are Ulema e Soo but for Millions & Millions they are True, Virtuous, Righteous, Learned, beloved, dignified religious scholars of Islam.


Whether it's Ex Muslims, Aethiests, Agnostics, Islamophobes they will keep on quoting religious scholars like Maududi sahib that Islam Spread through Sword & for millions Maudi sahib will remain Champion of Islam.

When I was teen, I read a book "modudi islam", I think its written by Mirza Tahir.
There is a joke in this book, that istill fondally remember, about a king, his horse and his royal doctor.