cracked.com recently had an article by Jacopo della Quercia [who regularly does funny but well cited lists at the site] called 5 Ridiculous Things You Probably Believe About Islam The fourth point in the article was (and I am posting it with all links in the original article): Western Cultures Are Far More Humane Than the Bloodthirsty Muslims Even before the whole terrorism thing, Islam had a reputation in the West for violence. Part of it has to do with how abruptly Islam was all up in everyone's face. For instance, while Hinduism took about 1,000 years to spread through India, and Christianity took about 400 years to go from persecuted cult to the state religion of the Roman Empire, Islam went from one guy's epiphany to the dominant political and religious force in the Middle East and North Africa in about 100 years. So a lot of people have reached the conclusion that the religion spread like holy wildfire for one reason: the sword. The next logical leap from this viewpoint is that as a people, Muslims must be violent and barbaric conquerors. Even before 9/11, you saw this portrayal in popular culture all the time: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But actually... Muhammad laid out some pretty progressive rules of warfare, and medieval Muslims out-niced the Christians in battle by a landslide. Especially since Muhammad personally issued "a distinct code of conduct among Islamic warriors" that included: * No killing of women, children or innocents -- these might include hermits, monks or other religious leaders who were deemed noncombatants; * No wanton killing of livestock or other animals; * No burning or destruction of trees and orchards; and * No destruction of wells. And no kicking with cleats on, Jeremy. In short, Muhammad wanted his armies to fight like freaking hippies. During the fucking Dark Ages. And they did. But the biggest territorial gains were made after Muhammad's death, right? Maybe that was when Islam earned its bloodthirsty reputation? Not exactly. His successor codified the existing rules and made them the standard for his army. Which probably explains why the Muslim army conquering Europe "exhibited a degree of toleration which puts many Christian nations to shame," in the words of one expert. Plus, they built all sorts of nifty buildings. So while Christian crusaders were beheading enemies and tossing their heads like oversized hacky sacks, their Muslim counterparts had a whole honor code that led them to feed the armies of their defeated enemies. Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_1891...bly-believe-about-islam_p2.html#ixzz1Au06dU9i But people constantly claim that Islam was spread by the sword. Its one of the favouritist claims of people who follow the warz on terrorz avidly. So what is the basis for these claims? note: in the interest of academic integrity, please accompany all claims by cited references. If you feel any of the above citations are biased, please provide evidence for the same. This being a history forum, citations from historians will be appreciated.
Uh, according to what you just posted, Islam spread by the sword. It was, according to your posted link, an unusually humane sword for its time. Perhaps that could be debated in another thread. But the answer to the OP question is "yes".
Why another thread? I'd like to hear your opinions. When you say, it was an unusually humane sword for its time, what do you mean? Why do you think Islam spread so rapidly at the time? What factors do you think influenced this rapid rise in the political power of Muslims over such a large area in 100 years? A little more historical background: sources for figures: Hourani, Albert, 2002, A History of the Arab Peoples, Faber & Faber, , ISBN 0-571-21591-2 Part of it at least after the 10th century, seems to be like the practices we see in modern Israel: Part of it seems to be about status, like Indians who became Christians or speak English: sources: Lapidus, Ira M. 2002, A History of Islamic Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. But it seems that conversion was higher in multicultural periods.
SAM, do you believe that in Islamic states, ex-Muslims should be free to declare their apostasy (abandoning the religion), their apostasy must be legally recognized, and that they should be protected from all forms of religious discrimination, violence and coercion if they should choose this path? Do you condemn those who use violence to force others to stay "Islamic", and do you condemn governments who refuse to legally recognize those who leave Islam as having done so? Finally, do you believe Islam should be used as the basis for common law, even in cases where it clearly contradicts prevailing medical wisdom and humane practices?
According to Islam slavery is legal. Muhamed didn't kill everyone because he wanted lots of slaves. Muhamed was a military general who did spread Islam by the sword. I think its funny that anyone who was Islam would try to argue against that point.
Not sure what this has to do with the OP. But lets give it a go: Of course. Its irrational to think that not allowing people to declare their lack of faith is somehow a substitute of faith. Besides, the Quran does not subscribe to any punishment for apostasy. It is a matter between a person and God. I remember you are a follower of the Hadiths, I am not, but here is a musannah hadith on the topic: Hadrat Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz [d. 97 AH/720 AD] [popularly known as Umar II and regarded as part of the Khulafa-i-Rashidoon] Some people accepted Islam during the period of Umar bin Abdul Aziz, who is called the fifth rightful caliph of Islam. All these people renounced Islam sometimes later. Maimoon bin Mahran the governor of the area wrote to the caliph about these people. In reply Umar bin Abdul Aziz ordered him to release those people and asked him to re-impose jizya on them. [Musannaf Abdur Razzaq, pp. 171-10, cited in M. E. Subhani,Apostasy in Islam (New Delhi, India: Global Media Publications, 2005), pp. 23-24. Abdur Razzaq ibn Humama (d. 211 AH). This is the earliest musannaf (a hadith collection arranged in topical chapters) work in existence.] A leading jurist immediately following the Rashidun: Ibrahim al-Nakha'i [d. 95 AH] [a leading jurist and traditionist among the generation succeeding the Companions] According to al-Nakha'i, apostate should be re-invited to Islam, but should never be condemned to death. [He] maintained the view that the invitation should continue for as long as there is hope that the apostate might change his mind and repent. [referred to in Chapter: Freedom of Religion in Mohammad Hashim Kamali’s Freedom of Expression in Islam Islamic Text Society, 1997] An important contributor to the traditions of Islam: Sufyan al-Thawri [d. 161 AH] [known as 'the prince of the believers concerning Hadith' (amir al-mu'minin fi'l-Hadith) and is the author of two important compilations of Hadith, namely al-Jami' al-Kabir, and al-Jami' al- Saghir] According to al-Thawri, apostate should be re-invited to Islam, but should never be condemned to death. [He] maintained the view that the invitation should continue for as long as there is hope that the apostate might change his mind and repent. [cited in Kamali, as above] A Hanafi jurist: Shams al-Din al-Sarakhsi [d. 389 AH] [An eminent Hanafi jurist and author of al-Mabsut] "The prescribed penalties (Hudud) are generally not suspended because of repentance, especially when they are reported and become known to the head of state (imam). The punishment of highway robbery, for instance, is not suspended because of repentance; it is suspended only by the return of property to the owner prior to arrest. ... Renunciation of the faith and conversion to disbelief is admittedly the greatest of offenses, yet it is a matter between man and his Creator, and its punishment is postponed to the day of judgment (fa'l-jaza' 'alayha mu'akhkhar ila dar al-jaza'). Punishments that are enforced in this life are those which protect the people's interests, such as just retaliation, which is designed to protect life." [al-Mabsut, X, p. 110, quoted in Kamali cited above.] A Maliki jurist [the four major madhabs in Sunni Islam are Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki and Sha'fi] Abu Al-Walid Al-Baji [d. 474 AH] [a noted Maliki jurist; a contemporary of Imam Ibn Hazm] ... observed that apostasy is a sin which carries no prescribed penalty (hadd), and that such a sin may only be punished under the discretionary punishment of ta'zir ... [mentioned in Kamali cited above] Another Maliki jurist Imam Abu 'Abdullah Al-Qurtubi [d. 1273 AD] [Eminent Malike Scholar of hadith and fiqh] "Al-Samara'i in his comment on this verse (an-Nahl:107) has quoted from Qurtubi's al-Jami the remark that the verse conveys an admonition that the wrath of Allah will be incurred by the apostate but there is no hint of any other punishment." [S. A. Rahman's Punishment of Apostasy in Islam, p. 47, referring to Nu'man 'Abd al-Razzaq al-Samara'i. Ahkam al-Murtadd fi al-Shari'at al-Islamiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon: Dar al-Arabiyyahya lil-Taba'at wal Nashr wal-Tauzi, 1968] A noted Islamic scholar: # Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi [d. 1355 AD] [Maliki scholar and author of Qur'anic commentary Bahrul Muhit] "Ibn Hayyan, a well-known exegetist, has expressly mentioned a definite opinion that no apostate can be coerced into rejoining the Muslim community." [mentioned in S. A. Rahman, Punishment of Apostasy in Islam, India, Kitab Bhaban, 1996, p. 55] Another noted Islamic scholar: Ibn al-Hammam al-Hanafi [14th century AD] [Eminent scholar] "There is no punishment for the act of apostay, for its punishment is greater than that, with God." [mentioned in S. A. Rahman, Punishment of Apostasy in Islam, India, Kitab Bhaban, 1996, p. 45, citing Sharh Fath al-Qadir with commentary by Chalpi on Fath al-Qadir, Vol. IV, pp. 388-9] Other more recent Islamic walis Shaikh Rashid Rida [1865-1935] [Eminent Islamic scholar; disciple of Afghani/Abduh] "This verse reaffirms the one which occurs in Surat al-Baqarah (II:256), and both proscribe compulsion in religion. Both of these passages proclaim and uphold that people are free to pursue religious beliefs of their own choosing. No one is to be compelled to abandon the religion he professes nor must anyone be exposed to punishment and torture for the sake of religion." [quoted in chapter Freedom of religion by Dr. Mohammad Hashim Kamali's Freedom of Expression in Islam, Islamic Text Society, 1997] Thats point one and there are sufficient references from noted historians, jurists and scholars for anyone who wishes to reference this point of view For more references and sources see link below source: http://apostasyandislam.blogspot.com/ Islam is probably the first religion where state and church were separated into executive, judiciary and parliament - the qadi [jurist] is not the ulema [scholar] nor is he the President, Sultan, caliph or the king. In fact, traditionally, in all Islamic countries, the government determines the law and defines it. The ulema never do. They simply pontificate on various aspects of jurisprudence, which is why there are several madhabs in Islam and they are all considered valid. Hence sharia is based on consensus of the government or parliament [in Islamic countries the word sharia is used for parliament] Which is why you see so many discrepancies in legal procedures and processes between Muslim countries.
Sir Lawrence of Arabia (old blue eyes) waltzed into Syria like the "Big Daddy", and the tribal minds were putty in his hands. It's all about needs of Colonial France and the needs of Colonial England, and "Big Daddy" U.S. got to take care of us all. It's about the little tribes getting ate by the big ones. And who's the bigger "Big Daddy". It's about family...capeesh?? (capisce)??
Its funny, I came in here specifically to post about that fourth point until I read the OP and saw that this was centered around it. Look, the very nature of christianity up until the enlightenment was that whatever you could not change, and whatever you could not change you conquered, and whatever you conquered you demonized. (In my opinion) The nature of most other religions prior to christianity that STILL SURVIVE to this date was mostly one of isolationist, not necessarily peaceful, but the idea that you distance yourself from other religions and you didn't really conquer VAST amounts of territory solely to convert people. (In my opinion) Christianity is a religion which originally gained people through what can be considered the first marketing schemes that stretched across continents. Christmas doesn't even celebrate Jesus's birthday (and as a non christian this seems completely wierd) but was done to match up with a Roman holiday. Look at hell, the word is awfully similar to "Hel" the land of the dead in Norse mythology. But "Hel" was not necessarily good or bad, just where you went when you died. Seems somewhat conveniant to demonize hel into hell to scare Norse culture into Christianity. Even the word "Thursday" literally came from "Thor's day". But sam, when I originally read that article a few days ago I found it to be a great insight. I honestly thought that it was some sort of law to wear a Burka and I never realized that it really is not that strict.
You are quite right. This is true of various Hindu sects as well as Zoraostrians. In fact, until Islam, medicine, education and social welfare were all religiously associated, which is why Jews and Christians had separate institutions for all of them. The Christians had their monks and the Jews their rabbis. Secular institutions only started with the Ummayads who opened schools, hospitals and universities which were open to all and paid for by the state, with non-religious professionals in charge. Hence the large number of Jewish academics in the universities. I think its because the veil has become symbolic of Muslims, women who wear it outside mandated countries usually do so to advertise their faith or to make a political statement. Its the old principle of making something taboo = making something attractive. But I think it is also about being used to something, most of us don't even notice the burqa the way we would not notice a pair of stockings or an overcoat or a monkey cap. Its "normal" for us to see some odd duck wearing it, so its not an issue. I'm not certain, but I think Lawrence was actually against many of the decisions that came to fruition. From what I read of him, he lived in the Middle East long enough to get a sense of the culture correctly and was not prone to flights of fancy about the myths that surrounded them in the west
We all know Cracked Magazine is the ultimate authority on Islamic history. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And we all know there is no 'authority' to begin with in a discussion Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
In terms of the actual discussion: One has to differentiate Islam vs Islamic Empire. When someone says "Islam spread by the sword" to me it means that people were converted to Islam at the point of the sword- this to me is a false argument. I took a Islam class at UW and even the professor mentioned that there are maybe just 2 isolated instances where someone was converted to Islam at the point of a sword. One must provide evidence of conversion at the sword for such an argument, and I've never seen much if any. Now if the question is did the Islamic Empire spread by the sword- here you have to give me a fucking break- its an Empire for God sake. In a condition where either you are expanded upon or you expand- the surrounding empire (Christian) was hostile towards the Islamic Empire- any attack on the Islamic Empire yields the whole Christian Empire as fair game. Did Democracy spread by the sword? Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
History has ultimate facts? History depends on the transmitters of 'facts'- If the transmitters have bias, there is no fact. For example were Mongols really such barbaric assholes- or was the history that was transmitted by Europeans (their enemies) really the 'facts'? Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I can't, I believe that was the point which I was trying to make? Empires have to spread in such a manner at least at some point in time. The spreading of empire by sword does not mean that the 'belief' is being spread by the sword at the same time- unless it can be shown that there were forced conversion throughout the empire. You can say that Islam was 'exposed' to new people because of the spreading Empire (at a much faster rate), just like so many other things like 'culture', 'art' and so forth is exposed to the newer people- but no one calls the spread of these things 'by sword' which implies through force. For example the architecture of the Muslim Empire can also be seen in other countries- were these forced on them, or did they 'like what they saw' and tried to bring those things in their society. This would mean that the use of soap was spread by the sword, and so many other things that come as part of an expanding empire and the interaction of different people entering the new empire. Point being: the term 'spread by the sword' is a false implication of being spread by coercion and should not be applied to the things that like culture, and belief- unless it can be shown that people were forced to bring that in their lives. So to suggest 'Islam was spread by the sword' then I expect numerous occasions of mass conversion (by force) as evidence to back such an argument. Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Sure, Islam spread by the sword, and history shows this quite plainly. There were not forced conversions, but there were taxes put on people who were not Muslim, and ruling over a land and repopulating it with Muslims is the kind of gradual colonization Sam likes to rail about when she talks about the American Indian.
When the ruling power believes with all their heart statements like this: It's not so hard to imagine the political climate within the conquered territories.
So that would mean Islam spread due to people's greed (pay less taxes?) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! How much is the difference in tax burden? The Muslims were required to pay zakat, which the non-Muslim weren't. Which amounts to '2.5%'. Secondly: "The sunna is that there is no jizya due from women or children of people of the Book, and that jizya is only taken from men who have reached puberty.” Malik's Muwatta Book 17, Number 17.24.46 This would suggest that even if the men convert to save money, the women wouldn't have because in Islam EVEN the women has to pay 'zakat'. This means the women lived with 0% tax as she neither paid jizyah nor the zakat. But if she converted then she would have to pay 2.5%. Not to mention those men would still have to pay at least 2.5% still and now also be subject to military service. Secondly the 'amount of jizyah' "Book 17, Number 17.24.44: Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi from Aslam, the mawla of Umar ibn al-Khattab, that Umar ibn al-Khattab imposed a jizya tax of four dinars on those living where gold was the currency, and forty dirhams on those living where silver was the currency. In addition, they had to provide for the muslims and receive them as guests for three days." Four dinar or 40 dhirams- a year. This is a set amount compared to zakat which takes 2.5% from a persons WEALTH (with no set max). Was it really that much more from zakat? It would seem that the well off would be paying higher in taxes as Muslims than the other way around. While the tax on poor whether jizyah or not would be lowered (or extinguished) because the jizyah can not be more than that is bearable by the person, which would technically exclude the poor from paying it- Secondly for whatever the difference was between the two taxes- the non-Muslims were not to serve in the military as the jizyah was taken in contract to protect them. So did they believe their lives were worth more than the tax they were going to pay, afterall they don't have to be part of the military and put their lives on the line. (In the context the Empire was still expanding, i.e fighting) Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
