Did Islam spread by the sword?

[S.A.M.]

Interesting topic. I'm going to suggest that no, initially, like Christianity, Islam was not spread by the sword. Later, yes, Islam was spread by the sword as it was the religion of Arab colonialists. So, again, initially no, but later, in certain times and places - of course.

Which Arab colonialists came later?

See this:

Richard Bulliet's "conversion curve" shows a relatively low rate of conversion of non-Arab subjects during the Arab centric Umayyad period of 10%, in contrast with estimates for the more politically multicultural Abbasid period which saw the Muslim population grow from approx. 40% in the mid 9th century to close to 100% by the end of the 11th century.[10] This theory does not explain the continuing existence of large minorities of Christians in the Abbasid Period. Other estimates suggest that Muslims were not a majority in Egypt until the mid-10th century and in the Fertile Crescent until 1100. Syria may have had a Christian majority within its modern borders until the Mongol Invasions of the 13th century.

source: Tobin Siebers, "Religion and the Authority of the Past", University of Michigan Press, Nov 1, 1993, ISBN 0-472-08259-0

Its possible the Mongols forced people to convert since they came later although it doesn't seem very Mongol like, but they did eventually get more civilised since as Mughals they ruled India for 800 years without much impact on religion.

Historically it's probably not true at all

 

[Michael]

I've already written extensively on the topic in the thread with the first mention of MHMD we have evidence of - which as you know was as a Christian Title for Jesus. You may want to go back and review Byzantine history, how they managed their so-called "Empire". That's a good enough place to start.

Other than that, it's really just chasing tails. Yes, I'm interesting in Greeko-Roman history. No, I just don't have the time to prove the Epic Cycle was only a collections of stories and no matter how influential Virgil's Aeneid was, a Trojan prince named Aeneas was not the founder of Rome and the Julio-Claudian dynasty did not originate with the Gods.

That's called political and religious propaganda SAM.


So, yeah, the topic is very interesting. Why don't you try to explain early Islam from the starting POV God's aren't real and see where that takes you?

 

[786]

So, yeah, the topic is very interesting. Why don't you try to explain early Islam from the starting POV God's aren't real and see where that takes you?

Why don't you try to explain your life history from the starting POV that you aren't real and see where that takes you.

Peace be unto you

 

[Michael]

Why don't you try to explain your life history from the starting POV that you aren't real and see where that takes you.

Peace be unto you

You honestly think Roman History can be accurately detailed assuming the Julian Dynasty descended from a Goddess? Virgil wrote the Aeneid for his patrons. While a wonderfully epic tale, a true classic, it was nonetheless written as political and religious propaganda.

I'm sure you can understand that. What you can't understand is the same IS true of the Qur'an. Which is why you have no idea when it was written. Because it's history is part of a back-story intertwined in political and religious propaganda. Which was (and is) very common.

So long as you maintain this childish fantasy that Gods and Goddesses exist, you'll no sooner learn the truth as even to be able to ask the appropriate question to do so.

 

[S.A.M.]

I've already written extensively on the topic in the thread with the first mention of MHMD we have evidence of - which as you know was as a Christian Title for Jesus. You may want to go back and review Byzantine history, how they managed their so-called "Empire". That's a good enough place to start.

Other than that, it's really just chasing tails. Yes, I'm interesting in Greeko-Roman history. No, I just don't have the time to prove the Epic Cycle was only a collections of stories and no matter how influential Virgil's Aeneid was, a Trojan prince named Aeneas was not the founder of Rome and the Julio-Claudian dynasty did not originate with the Gods.

That's called political and religious propaganda SAM.


So, yeah, the topic is very interesting. Why don't you try to explain early Islam from the starting POV God's aren't real and see where that takes you?

Feel free to support your assertions with citations from peer reviewed literature or historians at ANY point. Opinions, as you know, are like arseholes

There is no doubt that Mohammed existed, occasional attempts to deny it notwithstanding. His neighbours in Byzantine Syria got to hear of him within two years of his death at the latest; a Greek text written during the Arab invasion of Syria between 632 and 634 mentions that "a false prophet has appeared among the Saracens" and dismisses him as an impostor on the ground that prophets do not come "with sword and chariot". It thus conveys the impression that he was actually leading the invasions.

Mohammed's death is normally placed in 632, but the possibility that it should be placed two or three years later cannot be completely excluded. The Muslim calendar was instituted after Mohammed's death, with a starting-point of his emigration (hijra) to Medina (then Yathrib) ten years earlier. Some Muslims, however, seem to have correlated this point of origin with the year which came to span 624-5 in the Gregorian calendar rather than the canonical year of 622.

If such a revised date is accurate, the evidence of the Greek text would mean that Mohammed is the only founder of a world religion who is attested in a contemporary source. But in any case, this source gives us pretty irrefutable evidence that he was an historical figure. Moreover, an Armenian document probably written shortly after 661 identifies him by name and gives a recognisable account of his monotheist preaching.

- Patricia Crone, professor of Islamic history at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton

 

[786]

So long as you maintain this childish fantasy that Gods and Goddesses exist, you'll no sooner learn the truth as even to be able to ask the appropriate question to do so.

What you are saying is to assume what the truth is and then use circular logic to say 'this is what happened' and pass it as truth. :shrug:

Peace be unto you

 

[Michael]

Feel free to support your assertions with citations from peer reviewed literature or historians at ANY point. Opinions, as you know, are like arseholes

SAM, we've already gone over this here:
New Book: The Hidden Origins of Islam: New Research into Its Early History

It has been established that the earliest coinage with the motto MHMT appeared in eastern Mesopotamia around 660, made their way westward, and there bilingual coins were stamped with MHMT in the center and muhammad in Arabic script at the edge. These coins bear a Christian iconography, i.e. always with crosses, so that the name muhammad is clearly to be understood as a predicate of Jesus, as in the Sanctus of the mass ("praise be to he that comes...").

Relinking the same citations is a waste of time and I know you don't have that short of a memory.

Religious beliefs and superstitions evolve from earlier beliefs. Here we see Judaism arises from earlier Polytheism, Christianity arises from Judaism, Islam arises from Christianity. To answer your OP you need to know where Islam came from. And no, The Gods did it, isn't going to cut it.

So, it's again with chasing tails. One wonders why you bother opening a post in a SCIENCE forums at all?



Oh, and SAM, we all know how much politicking is involved in making Professor - anyone, anyone, who makes no room for doubt ("there is no doubt") is not being a very good scientist period.

 

[iceaura]

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?

Because this one is devoted to a different, and completely answered, question.

No sense in confusing things. Islam spread by the sword. It appears to have relied more on the sword than most other religions, in fact, but that would be a sideline to the OP as well.

 

[Michael]

What you are saying is to assume what the truth is and then use circular logic to say 'this is what happened' and pass it as truth. :shrug:

Peace be unto you

No, but that's exactly what you are going to do. There's no evidence of Gods and Goddesses. Sorry 786, but, The Gods did it, simply isn't rational or logical. See, in "Science" we use "evidence" and "observation" to explain things.

I'm positive there's a Fantasy forums around here were you, Allah and Harry Potter can play dress-up.

 

[Michael]

Because this one is devoted to a different, and completely answered, question.

No sense in confusing things. Islam spread by the sword. It appears to have relied more on the sword than most other religions, in fact, but that would be a sideline to the OP as well.

Initially, I don't think so, no more than Mormonism was spread by the sword.

After an Empire was established, then yes of course. "Arabs" attacked Indians, Spanish, Italians, Sicilians, even the Chinese records battles they lost. BUT, is this spreading Islam by the sword? Or is it basic empire building?

SAM does speak English fluently and I'm pretty sure no one held a sword to her neck.

 

[S.A.M.]

SAM, we've already gone over this here:
New Book: The Hidden Origins of Islam: New Research into Its Early History

It has been established that the earliest coinage with the motto MHMT appeared in eastern Mesopotamia around 660, made their way westward, and there bilingual coins were stamped with MHMT in the center and muhammad in Arabic script at the edge. These coins bear a Christian iconography, i.e. always with crosses, so that the name muhammad is clearly to be understood as a predicate of Jesus, as in the Sanctus of the mass ("praise be to he that comes...").

Relinking the same citations is a waste of time and I know you don't have that short of a memory.

Religious beliefs and superstitions evolve from earlier beliefs. Here we see Judaism arises from earlier Polytheism, Christianity arises from Judaism, Islam arises from Christianity. To answer your OP you need to know where Islam came from. And no, The Gods did it, isn't going to cut it.

So, it's again with chasing tails. One wonders why you bother opening a post in a SCIENCE forums at all?

I understand - which is why this

"Muhammad" first appears on coins in Syria bearing Christian iconography. In this context the name is used as an honorific meaning "revered" or "praiseworthy" and can only refer to Jesus Christ, as Christianity was the predominant religion of the area at this time.

is called an opinion.

There is historical evidence of a gradual change in coinage from a proto-Byzantine to Arab-Byzantine. First, the cross was eliminated, then the Christians icons were presented mutilated and finally, they were replaced with Islamic writings.

But this is hardly surprising. Didn't Americans originally use Spanish coins before changing over to their own?

Also one of the earliest surviving translations of the Shahadah into a foreign language is in Greek, from the reign of al-Walid I (86–96 AH, 705–715 CE): Οὐκ ἔστι[ν θεὸς εἰ μὴ ὁ θεὸς μόνος·] Μααμὲ[τ ἀπόστολος θεοῦ] (Ouk esti[n theos ei mē ho theos monos;] Maame[t apostolos theou]).[4] "There is no god except for God alone; Muhammad is the Apostle of God."; i.e. "Allah", the Arabic word for "God", is translated as ὁ θεὸς and Muhammad is transliterated as Μααμὲτ.

http://www.websters-online-dictiona...cof=FORID:9&ie=UTF-8&q=Shahadah&sa=Search#922

 

[Michael]

That's not THE earliest, it a generation, nearly two, later.

Anyway, I said, I don't think Islam was initially spread by the sword and I gave my rational for why - as well as linked.

Get this,. Patricia Crone, myself, most other Scientific academia - we do not believe in the Gods or Goddesses. As such, we know that Mohammad "The Prophet" could not have existed because "Prophets" are no more real than winged fairy creatures, moons splitting in half or lighting tossing Zeuses.

Is Mohammad the trouble maker Greeks mentioned? Perhaps THAT Mohammad existed? If he did, he didn't start "Islam". He would have been a Syrian Christian. Islam, as far as I can tell, starts with Empire.




That aside, I'd like your posts - except your premises are so full of mythology and superstition - these suppositions make them nearly meaningless for anyone interested in the REAL history. Which I am.

 

[S.A.M.]

That's not THE earliest, it a generation, nearly two, later.

Anyway, I said, I don't think Islam was initially spread by the sword and I gave my rational for why - as well as linked.

Get this,. Patricia Crone, myself, most other Scientific academia - we do not believe in the Gods or Goddesses. As such, we know that Mohammad "The Prophet" could not have existed because "Prophets" are no more real than winged fairy creatures, moons splitting in half or lighting tossing Zeuses.

Is Mohammad the trouble maker Greeks mentioned? Perhaps THAT Mohammad existed? If he did, he didn't start "Islam". He would have been a Syrian Christian. Islam, as far as I can tell, starts with Empire.




That aside, I'd like your posts - except your premises are so full of mythology and superstition - these suppositions make them nearly meaningless for anyone interested in the REAL history. Which I am.

Surprising, that is what I was thinking about your posts. You are apparently more enamoured of a German scholar who is an authority on Paleography and has studied the Sanaa Quran but does not know the language, than a recognised historian who is an authority on Islamic history and has studied the history of the religion for over 3 decades. I can accept Puins authority on the derivation of the Arabic language from Aramaic, but I am not sure how the study of Quranic orthography makes him an authority on Islamic history. Especially since he cannot even grasp something as simple as the fact that since the Quran was orally transmitted and EVERYONE knows it was codified by Umar, whether there was a seen or a swad in the word is irrelevant, the presence/absence of didactic marks is irrelevant [note how well the Arabs manage without didactic marks until today] and the arrangement of the verses is irrelevant. You only ever use the chapters randomly anyway.

Moreover since the parchments and the calligraphy date differently and the parchment was evidently reused, all this shows is that some person rewrote some part of the Quran as he/she understood it while hearing it on a piece of parchment in his possession [the ink dates to after 700 AD]. Its in the Hejazi script so it could be ANYBODY- even a semi-literate tourist. What makes it authoritative?

 

[Michael]

SAM: I'll assume you still believe in God and that God speaks to people whom you call Prophets.

Can you see how discussing the History of Rome with someone who strongly believes the Julian Dynasty descended from a Goddess and cites Virgil's Aeneid as evidence is nearly a complete waste of time? Ever read those threads by creationists on why the earth is 3000 years old? It's kind of the same.


So, we can agree that Islam (which I'll call Syrian/Persian Christianity) might not have spread by the sword and that later, after Empire, that Islam (which I'll call Islam) did.

 

[786]

No, but that's exactly what you are going to do.

Actually what I was pointing out is that is exactly what you are going to do too... At least we claim it 'faith' but when you are going to do it- you're going to perpetuate it as fact.... which is plain bullshit.

You're going to assume what the truth is, that they are lying- and then you're going to use this and circular reasoning to show this is 'what happened' and they were 'indeed lying'...

See, in "Science" we use "evidence" and "observation" to explain things.

Problem is science doesn't say shit about god or goddesses not existing. You don't understand science is really the problem.

Peace be unto you

 

[Michael]

Yes 786, Science does say something about Gods and Goddesses not existing - it is highly likely they don't exist as there has never been any observable evidence of them existing.

That's the "Scientific" view. Is it correct? Maybe. Maybe not.

Who knows 786, maybe Xenu does exist as well as Allah and even Harry Potter and you can all get together and play dress me pretty in middle earth. Highly unlikely, but, obviously you need your blankey so go on ahead and keep hoping you will one day.

 

[S.A.M.]

It's kind of the same.

I have a very simple rule. I look at the data not at opinions. What is, not what it might imply.

Let me give you an example.

Recently while reading a post in the linguistic forums, Fraggle mentioned something about the origin of the word Moses. He based the etymology on the "fact" that the original Bible was in Hebrew. I made some casual comment about how could he be so certain?

When I slept and woke up next morning, I got up with that notion. How could anyone be certain? So I looked it up. Strangely enough, the only evidence of a Hebrew bible preceding the Septuagint is the letter of Aristeas from the Dead Sea Scrolls. So I looked that up. Its a known forgery or what is more elegantly called a Pseudepigrapha. Thats it. Thats the evidence.

Then I looked at the archaelogist who studied the Dead Sea Scrplls and presented this evidence of the Hebrew Bible. Its Yigal Yadin, who faked the Masada findings and was one of the founding fathers of Israel

So thats the evidence of the Hebrew Bible which everyone sets store by. So give me something infallible like that and I'll believe you. Some Christian guy saying Mohamed equals Jesus based on his feelings won't do it.

 

[Michael]

"Some Christian guy's ... feelings" ... seriously SAM? Like I said, it's a waste of time discussing this.

And no, until you stop believing in magic and fairytales you will not be able to accept the real history. The fact is Gods and Goddesses don't exist. Prophets don't either and the Qur'an was written much later as Political and Religious Propaganda - a foundation myth. No different than all of the other religious of the world. But, whatever, in all honestly, it's fine. There's lots of New Earth Creationists out there, people who believe in Xenu, all sorts of people, let's not worry about it :shrug:

 

[786]

Yes 786, Science does say something about Gods and Goddesses not existing

Wrong. Strike one

it is highly likely they don't exist as there has never been any observable evidence of them existing.

likely, shikely, dikely.... all your opinions not said by science.

Strike two

That's the "Scientific" view. Is it correct? Maybe. Maybe not.

Nope.. Strike Three! You're out.

Peace be unto you

 

[S.A.M.]

"Some Christian guy's ... feelings" ... seriously SAM? Like I said, it's a waste of time discussing this.

And no, until you stop believing in magic and fairytales you will not be able to accept the real history. The fact is Gods and Goddesses don't exist. Prophets don't either and the Qur'an was written much later as Political and Religious Propaganda - a foundation myth. No different than all of the other religious of the world. But, whatever, in all honestly, it's fine. There's lots of New Earth Creationists out there, people who believe in Xenu, all sorts of people, let's not worry about it :shrug:

Everyone has a right to their opinions, but me, I set store by evidence. Are the Sanaa manuscripts written by a tramp or a scholar? No evidence because the Kufic script was developed for the Quran and lay scripts = laymen, hence not authoratative.

Is there a Hebrew Bible before the Septuagint? Maybe but there is no evidence of a Hebrew language before the Septuagint, let alone the Hebrew bible.

So I'm open to whatever else you have to offer.