Once Arabs had control of the silk and spice trade lines they became wealthy and traded with small illiterate kingdoms in what is now Malaysia and Indonesia. To facilitate trade with Muslim Arabs the leaders of these small independent (many illiterate) tribes "converted to Islam" and when they did their entire "kingdoms" were considered "Muslim' - whether they thought they were or not. For the literate Chinese that lived in these nations, as they already strong trading ties with China, they mostly did not convert to Islam. Over the centuries this is reflected in the social and religious make up of these countries. There are LOTS of different historic examples of people converting to various religious depending on the circumstances. Why is it, do you suppose, that the illiterate small weak and poor kingdoms of Indonesia slowly converted to Islam whereas the power literate rich Chinese (who went so far as to build temples for Muslims in their capitol) did NOT convert to Islam (or Christianity for that matter)? In very general terms I do think monotheism has a personal appeal to people. I was talking to a Christian Chinese just last night. She was invited to various Christian events when she was young and one day, after years, she had a religious event "I was filled with the holy ghost". So, while all of her family is Buddhist, she is Christian. Now, after speaking to her, I can promise you she, like 99.999999999999% of the monotheists I know, really doesn't know much about the "Theology" of Christianity. She certainly wouldn't know about the finer points of different we here crap on about. In regards to the OP, in certain places at certain times, people converted to Islam (or all sorts of beliefs) freely. At other times they did so for trading opportunities - in SE Asia these accompanied the "conversion" of their entire populations. At still other times, indigenous populations converted because of coercion. A very VERY VERY small number of people would have converted due to tenants of Islam - as most people just didn't have the knowledge to understand the finer arguments. Q: Is there any good evidence for the existence of Allah SAM? A: No there is none. See SAM, you can't bring yourself to answer that question. But of course Buddhists Monks would have asked this question in one way or another. Why would a Buddhist convert to Islam? Why didn't Chinese Buddhists convert? Only the illiterate tribes of the steps, (very dependent on trade with the powerful Arab Empires) "converted". Are you getting the picture SAM? Can you step back far enough away from your bias and see the bigger picture? I don't think it's possible for you, while you truly believe in Gods and Goddesses and magic fairy horses they fly. You'll always think "Islam" is somehow special (superior ideology) because you have deluded yourself into really truly believing there's a real "God" out there. But I'm sorry to say, there's not. So, IMO you're never going to be able to ask and accept the answers to your OP. Why do women (or men) marry rich Jewish New York Lawyers and convert to Judaism? Do you really think it has to do with the finer points of religion? Please! Why did Muslims that remained in Spain become Catholics? Why do some Muslims and Christian convert to Scientology? Why are many Native Americans Christians? Why are some Japanese Christians? Why do Christians convert to Islam and why do Muslims convert to Christianity? Why are so many people becoming atheist? etc... etc.... etc..... there's all sorts of situations. All of the questions above have answers and NONE of those answers involves God SAM (or Xenu for that matter).
SO? Did Islam initially spread by the "sword" (whatever that means). IMO I think No. I would define "Islam" at this point as Syrian/Persian Christianity that did not believe in the Trinity and probably had NOT fallen under the direct influence of Byzantium mercenaries. Later, once the political and religious propaganda was codified in a book, then, at certain times YES people were conquered and coerced into defining themselves as "Muslims" while at other times leaders converted for trading opportunities and along with them their entire populaces. Still other times people had "religious experiences" and converted freely. As war was a constant I imagine if people thought Islam would make them freemen then I can see that a an enticement as well (not that it did, Slavery and peasantry remained rife) but, similar to Communism (or Capitalism) people will adopt en masse ideologies they otherwise wouldn't .... simply to try and change their economic situation (which may be why China is now Capitalist and America becoming Socialist while England is nearly COmmunist.,.. and all in about 20 years!) I imagine Islam and Christianity makes conversion in-roads during times of revolution or great change whereas Buddhism and Atheism probably make conversion in-roads during times of stability and reflection (for obvious reasons) - which is why I predict a lot more Islamic and Xian cults popping up in the coming years.
Remember the old slogans that were implanted into the older generations of the west?. How we"Saved" the Africans from their own "Savage" ways. How we brought civilization to the Primitive Tribal people?. White people are the civil ones..... They Go around "cleansing" Ethnic groups and making them bow down to "Civil" laws. We saved the Sand people too yay white people the White washers of history books. Remember 4 thousand years ago when the white people were all living in nice cities and the people of the middle east lived in caves? Oh wait it was the other way around my bad. Peace.
You seem to have neglected the wider view of the African experience with your religion also. Have a look around.
In the history I have researched, it was always made clear that Islam did spread in military advance, but the armies sent out against it were filled with conscripts, slaves, mercenaries and lacked the will to fight. The Muslim armies fought right through larger armies because the Muslims intently believed in their faith. And, no question about it, it was a better belief system than the old tribal and even mother goddess faiths that still lingered in much of the world. Even the 3-god Orthodox Christian faith (Jesus, The Father, and the Mother) retreated for the same reasons. Nevertheless, Islam is fundamentally more aggressisve because of its origins and traditions. There is nothing wrong with being aggressive, however. In the rise and fall of civilizations, what works determines what is best. Our problems with Islam are only slightly due to the slightly more aggressive ideology and much more due to circumstances. We promoted and continued to support the establishing of an alien faith right in the heart of Islam, in a most important area of Islam, of their society and civiization. Muslems are aware of their heritage, of having a magnficent civilization and its subsequent decline after the 12th century. The establishing of Isreal there was an insulting affront that Muslems cannot help but resent. We have been targeted because we have backed Israel militarily, financially, and politically. This colors the way Muslims perceive us. They want to become secular and we are the center and proponent of Western secularism, so they are rather ambililent about it. Also, all over the world, people who live in the stress of modern times and crack up under it use whatever ideology is available to justy "taking revenge" on society by killing other people. A century ago it was Marxism and we had their anarchists feared all over Europe because of their bombings. Now it is Muslim Al queda. There is more about all this in "The Last Civilization" and can be examined in civilization-overview dot com.
Isn't pakistan a current day living example of the highest levels of ingrained religious tolerance, the honor code and ethics of feeding the enemies! Oh wait, have the minorities almost disappeared in proportion and have no rights on the land that once was theirs? And yes, it was honor code to murder the lone Christian minister who dared to seek some rights for minorities. In the Indian context, did you forget all the written word that glorifies the muslim invaders by the size of the rivers of blood they created of the kafirs?
A Proclamation I, Gustav, the Most Distinguished and Pre-eminent Member of the Aryan Curry Caucus, Sciforums Chapter, Demand the Deportation of SAM to Pakistan on Behalf of the Glorious Hindu Race of India
Would she then use the "White Passport"? :shrug: ...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
We were taught so in school. It was what we were supposed to write/say at the exam. The grade at the exam affects the GPA, the GPA is an important factor in which college one will be accepted to, which is again an important factor in whether one will turn out to be a loser or a winner in life. Basically, one's whole life hinges on writing down or saying the desired answers, whether they be about Islam spreading by the sword or that muscles hurt after exercise because acid builds up in them. It's no wonder that under such pressure, one starts to believe these things (and doesn't feel like investigating them - facing up to the possibility that one got ahead in life on the basis of something that is not actually true is just too much for most). However, we were not taught how to deal with the possibility that what we had to say to pass the exams might actually not be true ...
I wasn't taught anything like that in school. I wasn't even taught that about Christianity, despite the obvious facts of the matter. Religion was never analyzed like that, in any of my schooling - people just "adopted" various beliefs, or "became" thus and so, for unspecified but presumably benign reasons. It's just something I noticed everywhere the relevant histories or subjects came up, and something visible now - Islam and Christianity spread by coercion and violence, quite often. That was not the only way they spread, but it was an important and frequently dominant way. The situation is often human and therefore complicated, naturally. The madrassas currently attracting converts in southern Mexico are presumably more a response to coercion than an employer of it, but if they get more power their use of coercion is very likely to increase, in the manner of expanding gangs and defense of turf everywhere.
Christianity was spread by violence too. Look at what those assholes did to the entire Western Hemisphere! Burned the Aztec libraries and melted down the Incas' art objects, obliterating their histories. And the Protestants were just as evil north of the Rio Grande. Even in Roman times, when the empire finally succumbed to Christianity and adopted it as the state religion, they were very cruel to Jews and members of pre-Abrahamist religions. During the Crusades they made war on the Muslims, and later on during the Reformation they fought a hundred-year war among themselves, one rival sect against another against another against another. Now that the Jews finally have a tiny little bit of power, they're using against the Palestinian Muslims. Abrahamic religion sucks.
Note that such constitutes the spread of Christianity by force, in the first place. I.e., Constantine himself might not have been forced to convert, but he sure as hell forced his subjects to convert.
In some cases, adherence to the Islamic faith is/was coerced. In other cases, it was completely voluntary. Kinda like how Christian Europe was for a while.
true but for Islam you don't see things like the whole sale slaughter of the prussians( no not the german ones the original ones) like you do with christainity. yes both ended cultures but how it happened played out differently.
as much as I loathe Israel I don't think you can compare it to conversion by the sword. its not about them being jewish and the palestinians not being jewsish. its more about they want the land and don't want to have to be around those they stole it from around.
Distinction without a difference, there. But, yeah: Judaism isn't much of a proseletyzing religion. Which is probably why they have so few members compared to their nephews that do go in for that sort of thing.
