Was Islam spread by the sword?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi everyone. Before I start this thread, I want to lay out one rule. I only want Catholics and non-Catholic Christians to respond to this thread. I am not interested in debate between Muslims and Catholics or non-Catholic Christians.

So, I ask, was Islam spread by the sword or did it spread peacefully? 🤷:confused:
Well to limit who can respond, limits narrow-sided opinion of the thread. Just look back into the last 3 pages of the NCS and you will get your answer from the Catholic and Non-Catholic Christian members. Islam and Christianity each have good and bad history to how their religions were and are still spread today.
This is an open forum . U started a thread where Christian participants will bash Islam & u won’t allow Muslims to protest ??? woow that’s very nice of u 😛
Agreed. This type of thread will lead to more issues than its worth.
 
I would recommend reading books from Robert Spencer (go on Amazon), or better yet go on, “Jihadwatch” or “dhimmiwatch”. You will find it very informative.
I was wondering when the anti-Islamic info was going to start popping up :rolleyes:
 
Well, I’m honestly looking for an Internet article. Preferably one that isn’t very long too. I ask for an Internet article because I don’t have the money to buy a book and I am looking for a quick answer.
**Why don’t you ask the Muslims. They are the people concerned. they will give you the right answer. Perhaps you have an aim and a ready answer to your question in your mind and you are looking for some further support.

That would be unfair.

The simple reply to your question would be “Yes” or “No.” Then it would need some proof etc from history and from the Quran. Because Islam is in the Quran. It is not in the so called Muslims that roam around.

You please explain your mission first so that all understand your problem. Thanks. Note that I have not given any reply to your question. But your question is very important.**
 
I was wondering when the anti-Islamic info was going to start popping up :rolleyes:
If by anti-Islamic info, you mean info that pertains to those Muslims who wish to destroy us, then yes, it’s going to pop up. Sorry, it’s not my fault they exist. And I can’t change history either. :rolleyes:
 
I was wondering when the anti-Islamic info was going to start popping up :rolleyes:
History is history. Is it “anti-Islamic info” to say that 9/11 happened? To say that Terry Anderson and other Westerners languished as hostages in Lebanon for as much as 7 years in the 1980’s? To recall the slaughter at the fall of Constantinople in 1453? To recall the death by flaying alive of Marcantonio Bragadino in 1571? No, it’s not “anti-Islamic info”, just fact. I hope everyone reads some of the sources cited by me and others.
 
**

You please explain your mission first so that all understand your problem. Thanks. Note that I have not given any reply to your question. But your question is very important.**
The OP does NOT have to answer or explain anything to you. Obviously the OP does NOT want a BIASED islamic answer with tall islamic tales of make believe peace and love from moslems. T
 
I would recommend reading books from Robert Spencer (go on Amazon), or better yet go on, “Jihadwatch” or “dhimmiwatch”. You will find it very informative.
The problem with those sources is that they stereotype all Muslims in the same light, I don’t deny the existence of a violent Islamic ideology that wants to “destroy us” as you put it, this is true, but not all Muslims subscribe to this ideology.

Islam in it’s extreme form is practiced by the Wahabi / salafi movement out of Saudi Arabia, and parts of Pakistan, as well as the Deobandi movement in Afghanistan, the ideology followed by the Taliban.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahabi
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deobandi

Note, that a common thread among the two groups is following the way of the companions of the prophet “sahaba” as they believe they are the best generation after the messenger.

Another form Islam believes that most of those companions were corrupted, wicked, falsifiers, hypocrites who professed Islam outwardly but were unbelievers and pagans inwardly.

Some Muslim sects have fundamentally different beliefs than others, so you can’t lump all Muslims into one and pass judgment on them equally.
 
Holly, if you genuinely want to find things out, go to a library, read books that hold different viewpoints, from reputable authors on both sides of the argument. All you are finding here is people bickering ‘‘yes it was’’ ‘‘no it wasn’t’’ ‘‘this isn’t fair’’ ‘‘they’re all out to get us’’.

This discussion is fruitless.
 
Obviously the OP does NOT want a BIASED islamic answer with tall islamic tales of make believe peace and love from moslems.
No, but the OP seems to want a BIASED Catholic and Christian answer with tall anti-Islamic tales that lumps all Muslims and Islam in one stereotype.
Holly, if you genuinely want to find things out, go to a library, read books that hold different viewpoints, from reputable authors on both sides of the argument.
👍 Best advise yet. Least at the end of the day no matter ones conclusion the research was done.
 
No, but the OP seems to want a BIASED Catholic and Christian answer with tall anti-Islamic tales that lumps all Muslims and Islam in one stereotype.
So what? It’s the OP’s prerogative to ask whomever he or she wishes for their opinion. Now it would be silly if this were an islamic site and she requested no islamic gobbledy-gook. However, despite your and the other mohammaden’s futile efforts it still remains a Catholic site.

Despite all your wailing and whinging islam was dreamt up by one evil and despicable individual so it is fair to lump all of islam into one genre: psychopathic fantasy.

I suppose you have no problem with lumping all nazis into one stereotype. Why should you moslems be any different? You are the original racists, bigots and aggressors. herr hitler idolized your supreme commander mohammed.
 
Ok but do you have a source for your information? Preferably a non-biased source?
It has been over 15 years since I studied any general world history. I am not sure that I could really point to good sources for you. I can give you some advice on this topic, though.

First, many Muslims will change the meaning of terms and the context on which you speak. For example, Islam was never spread by the sword. If you read the history of Europe, you will see many times where it was. However, those who hold these claims will explain that they were not spreading the FAITH by a sword but the political aspect of it. Or they will say that they were defending themselves. Or whatever. The fact remains that Islam, other than in its initial run, has always used force to spread. At times it was real force, at other times it was the threat of it.

Second, the internet is a bad place to study this. Everyone has an agenda. Do some research using a basic world history book. IF you can get ahold of one published before 1970, it will be better.

Finally, keep in mind that the use of force does not mean that they are following a false religion. IT just means that they chose that over trying to reason with people. There are other reasons to dismiss Islam as a faith system
 
Muhammad died in Medina on June 8, 632 AD.

Damascus fell in 635, and Jerusalem capitulated five years after Muhammad died, in February 638

The fall of Alexandria in 643 sounded the death knell of more than thousand years of Hellenic civilization that once enriched the whole of the Near East with its scholarship and culture.

Cyprus fell in 648-9

Rhodes in 653

Constantinople had been attacked in 673, and then for the next five years Arab armies and fleets attempted unsuccessfully to break through the Byzantine defences. ‘Greek Fire,’ that mysterious substance that burned on water, destroyed the Muslim fleets and won the day for the defenders.

The whole of North Africa was lost by 698

Spain invaded - Less than eighty years after Muhammad’s death, in 711, Muslims from Tangiers poured across the 13 km wide strait of Gibraltar into Spain.

Then, in 717, the Muslims returned to the attack, emboldened by their successes in Spain.

By 721 this Arab-Berber horde had overthrown the ruling Catholic Visigoths and, with the fall of Saragossa, set their sights on southern France.

By 720 Narbonne had fallen.

Bordeaux was stormed and its churches burnt down by 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Abdullah al-Ghafiqi in early spring 732 - A basilica outside the walls of Poitiers was razed, and 'Abd al-Rahman headed for Tours which held the body of St Martin [who died in 397] apostle and patron saint of the Franks.

He was to be defeated and killed by Charles Martel and his Frankish army on a Saturday in October, 732, one hundred years after Muhammad’s death, on the road from Poitiers to Tours a defeat that was hailed by Gibbon and others as decisive in turning back the Muslim tide from Europe.

Attacks on France, however, continued, and in 734 Avignon was captured by an Arab force.

Lyons was sacked in 743.

It wasn’t until 759 that the Arabs were driven out of Narbonne.

Marseilles was plundered by them in 838.

Muslim incursions into Italy had been a feature of life from the early 800s

The islands of Ponza [off Gaeta] and Ischia [off Naples] had been plundered, and then, in 813 Civitavecchia, the port of Rome, whose harbour had been constructed by Trajan, was sacked by the Arabs.

In 826 the island of Crete fell to Muslim forces which retained it as their base until 961.

From around 827 they then began nibbling at Sicily

They captured Messina and controlled the Strait of Messina by 842, and finally took the whole island in 859, after Enna fell to them.

In 836 the Neapolitans self-interestedly invited the Muslim forces to help them against the Lombards and set the stage for more than a century of Muslims raids along the Adriatic, involving the destruction of Ancona, and Muslim progress as far as the mouth of the Po. ‘Saracen Towers’[5] south of Naples, built in the ninth century to warn locals of the approach of Arab fleets from Sicily and Africa still charm visitors to the Neapolitan coast.

Bari, now home to the relics of St Nicholas of Myra, the original ‘Father Christmas,’ fell to Khalfun, a Berber chieftan, by another act of treachery in 840.

From 853-871 the notorious Muslim brigand al- Mufarraj bin Sallam, and his successor, another Berber named Sawdan, controlled all the coast from Bari down to Reggio Calabria, and terrorized Southern Italy. They even plundered the Abbey of St Michael on Mt Gargano. They claimed the title of Emir, and independence of the Emir in Palermo.

Sacking of St Peter’s - Naples herself had to beat off a Muslim attack in 837. But in 846 Rome was not to be so fortunate. On August 23rd 846, Arab squadrons from Africa arrived at Ostia, at the Tiber’s mouth. There were 73 ships. The Saracen force numbered 11,000 warriors, with 500 horses.

The most revered Christian shrines outside the Holy Land, the tombs of Sts Peter and Paul, were desecrated and their respective Basilicas were sacked, as was the Lateran Basilica along with numerous other churches and public buildings.

The very altar over the body of St Peter was smashed to pieces, and the great door of St Peter’s Basilica was stripped of its silver plates. Romans were desolated and Christendom was shocked at the barbarism of the Muslim forces.

Three years later Pope Leo IV [847-855] formed an alliance with Naples, Amalfi and Gaeta, and when a Saracen fleet again appeared at the mouth of the Tiber in 849, the Papal fleet joined forces with its allies and they repelled the Muslim fleet which turned, and ran into a violent wind-storm that destroyed it, like Pharaoh’s army long before.

Taranto in Apulia was conquered by Arab forces in 846. They held it until 880.

In 870 Malta was captured by the Muslims.

In 871 Bari, the Saracens’ capital on mainland Italy, was recaptured from the Muslims by Emperor Louis II, who in 872 was to defeat a Saracen fleet off Capua.

In 873 the Muslim forces devastated Calabria in southern Italy to the point that it was reduced to the state ‘in which it had been left by the Great Flood’ and the Saracens expressed their intention of destroying Rome, the city of the ‘Petrulus senex,’ 'the ineffective old man, Peter.

In 874 Pope John VIII did all he could to dissuade Amalfi, Naples, Benevento, Capua, Salerno, and Spoleto from forming a pragmatic alliance with the Saracens. Amalfi, Capua and Salerno alone heeded his pleas for Christian solidarity.

From the close of 876 Pope John VIII had been sending letters in all directions to obtain help against the Arab forces which were devastating southern Italy and even threatening Rome itself.

… continued
 
… continued from above…

In 881 the Muslim allies of the Neapolitans captured the fortress on the Garigliano [the ancient Liris] 14 km east of Gaeta close to Anzio, just north of Naples, and plundered the surrounding countryside with impunity for forty years.

Returning from a synod at Ravenna [February 882] Pope John VIII found, as he put it, that ‘the Saracens are as much at home in Fundi [close to Rome, in Latium] and Terracina’ [80 km SE of Rome] as in Africa. ‘Though we were seriously unwell,’ wrote the Pope, we went forth to battle with our forces, captured eighteen of the enemy’s ships, and slew a great many of their men’. Six hundred captives of the Saracens were liberated.

Syracuse fell to the Muslims in 878 after a nine-month siege from which few escaped alive. The Byzantine city was pillaged and destroyed. Its collapse freed-up more numerous bands of marauding Muslims to harry the Italian towns and cities.

880 saw victory over Saracen forces at Naples by Byzantine Commanders and also the arrival in waters off Rome of warships sent by the emperor Basil to give the Pope the means of defending ‘the territory of St Peter’.

Meanwhile, the Saracens had turned their attention again to southern France and northern Italy. They had taken Avignon in 734 and Marseilles in 838 and they were ravaging Provence and North Italy from their bases in the Alps. The most important of these bases was Fraxineto or Frejus, not far from Toulon, which they captured in 889.

They were displaced temporarily from their base in 942 by Hugh of Arles who had a Byzantine fleet harry them from the sea, while he attacked from land. Horace Mann comments that it is symptomatic of the kind of pragmatic leaders who controlled the destiny of Europe at that time, that instead of wiping out this bloodthirsty band of Muslim invaders, Hugh allowed them to stay where they were on condition that they did all they could to prevent his rival as ‘king of Italy,’ Berengerius Marquis of Ivrea, from returning to Italy.

The latter managed to return from Germany to Italy in 945, and the Muslims were not to be expelled completely from their lair until 972 - almost one-hundred years after capturing Fraxineto - by a league of Italian and Provencal princes.

In the meantime they infested the passes of the Alps, robbing and murdering pilgrims on their way to Rome. In 921 a large band of Englishmen, on pilgrimage to the tombs of the Apostles in Rome, were crushed to death under rocks rolled down on them by Saracens in the passes of the Alps.

Muslim fleets sacked and destroyed Demetrias in Thessaly, Central Greece, in 902,

Thessalonica the second city of the Byzantine Empire fell to them in 904.

Muslim armies took Hysela in Carsiana in 887, and Amasia, the metropolitan city of Pontus in Asia Minor.

The bishop of Amasia named Malecenus wanted to ransom those of his people who had been captured but knew that the Byzantine Emperor Leo VI would not help; so he appealed to Pope Benedict IV in Rome.

The Pope received him kindly, and gave him an encyclical letter addressed to all bishops, abbots, counts and judges and to all orthodox professors of the Christian faith asking them to show Malacenus every consideration, and to see him safely from one city to the next.

In 905 Pope Sergius III helped Bishop Hildebrand of Silva Candida restore some of the damage done to his See by the ravaging Saracens who had devastated the Church of Silva Candida in the neighbourhood of Rome.

In 915 Pope John X successfully created a Christian League with the help of Byzantine Admiral Picingli and his fleet. Even the bickering princes of southern Italy joined forces against the Saracens, along with King Berengarius and his armies from North Italy. The enemy were holed-up in their fortresses on the Garigliano near Gaeta, north of Naples. After three months of blockade, they tried to fight their way out only to be repelled by a victorious Christian force.

In 934 the Fatimid imam al-Ka’im planned an audacious invasion of Liguria led by Ya’kub bin Ishaq. The latter attacked Genoa that year, and took it in 935.

… to be continued …
 
… continued from above…

It wasn’t until 972 that Duke William of Provence succeeded in driving the Saracens finally from the fastnesses of Faxineto. In 976 the Fatimid Caliphs of Egypt had sent fresh Muslim expeditions into southern Italy. Initially the German emperor Otho II , who had set up his headquarters in Rome, successfully defeated these Saracen forces, but in July 982 he was ambushed and his army was almost cut to pieces.

In 977 Sergius, Archbishop of Damascus, was expelled from his See by the Muslims. Pope Benedict VII gave him the ancient church of St Alexius on Rome’s Aventine hill, and he founded a monastery there and placed it under Benedictine rule, with himself its first abbot.

The pontificate of Pope John XVIII [1003-1009] was marred by famine and plague and by marauding bands of Saracens who plundered the Italian coast from Pisa to Rome from bases on Sardinia.

By 1010 they had seized Cosenza in southern Italy.

Sardinia fell to the Arabs in 1015 led by a certain Abu Hosein Mogehid [thus the Latin Chronicles]. I take this person to be Mujahid bin 'Abd Allah whom Arab sources credit with the invasion. The Saracen force based on Sardinia, over the next few years, torched Pisa, seized Luna in northern Tuscany, and ravaged the land. Pope Benedict VIII managed to assemble a fleet and challenged the Saracen chief who turned tail and fled to Sardinia, leaving his fleet at the mercy of the papal force which was victorious.

Mujahid bin 'Abd Allah then sent the Pope a bag of chestnuts and a message that he would arrive in the following summer with as many soldiers as there were nuts in the bag. Benedict accepted the chestnuts and sent back a bag of rice: ‘If your master,’ he said to the astonished messenger, ‘isn’t satisfied with the damage he has done to the dowry of the Apostle, let him come again and he will find an armed warrior for every grain of rice’.

The Pope did not wait for an answer but carried the war into the enemy’s territory. He co-opted the combined fleets of Pisa and Genoa and they sailed for Sardinia in 1017 only to find Mujahid in the act of crucifying Christians on Sardinia. The Muslim leader fled to Africa, and Sardinia was occupied by the Pisans. Mujahid kept trying to re-take Sardinia until 1050 when he was captured by the Pisans and the island was made over to them by the Pope.

Muslims from Spain sacked Antibes in 1003.

They sacked Pisa in 1005 and 1016.

Narbonne in 1020.

Sometime around 1025 Pope John XIX granted the pallium [sign of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction] to Archbishop Peter of Gerona in northeast Spain, on condition that he redeemed Christian captives of the Saracens as he had promised the Pope when he had come on his ‘ad limina’ visit.

… to be continued…
 
** Thanks jakasaki for giving some details of the conflict between the Muslims and the Roman Empire and the ensuing results. Please remember that these expeditions were not for spreading Islam. These were to save Islam from the imminent attacks of the enemies. Muslims had no need for any expansion. They were happy with their preaching and trading. But when the christians (Most probably the Catholics) in the nearby christian states killed some unarmed innocent Muslim traders, perhaps for preaching the new faith, the trouble started.

Then there was no end to it. You can start your story from that point onward into future years. Quite a few times the Armies of Caeser gathered at the border of the Islamic state during the life time of the prophet. When the prophet arrived with his forces, the army of the christians remained in their own territory and from there, they dispersed.

Thanks for the lesson in history.**
 
… continued from above…

The First Crusade what made it a reality

The four-hundred and sixty-three years that elapsed between Muhammad’s death in 632 and the calling of a Crusade to free the Holy Places in 1095 was not a time of ‘peaceful co-existence’ between Muslims and European or Byzantine Christians.

Nor was it, for Christians living in Muslim-occupied territories.

They enjoyed ‘peace’ only by keeping the lowest possible profile, paying the jizya, or head-tax, and accepting nonperson status in lands that had been Christian before the Muslim invaders arrived.

The new millennium saw the situation go from bad to worse.

In 1009 the Fatimid Caliph of Egypt, abu-'Ali Mansur al-Hakim, ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. The edict of destruction was signed by his Christian secretary ibn-'Abdun.

The Muslims destroyed the Tomb of Jesus, the Dome and the upper parts of the Church until their demolition was halted by the great mound of debris at their feet. For eleven years Christians were forbidden even to visit the rubble or to pray in the ruins.

Shocked by the destruction of Christendom’s holiest Shrine, Pope Sergius IV appealed for help to go to Palestine to rebuild it. His appeal fell on deaf ears.

At the beginning of the fifth century, two hundred years before Muhammad appeared, there were seven-hundred Catholic bishops in Africa.

Two hundred of them attended the Council of Carthage in 535 AD. By the middle of the 900s there were forty left. By 1050, as a result of ‘peaceful coexistence,’ there were only five left. In 1076 there were two.

We learn this from a letter that Pope Gregory VII, ‘Hildebrand,’ wrote to Cyriacus, Archbishop of Carthage in June 1076. As three bishops are needed for the valid consecration of another bishop Gregory asked him to send a suitable priest to Rome who could be consecrated assistant bishop, so that he [Cyriacus] and Servandus, bishop of Buzea in Mauritania, and the new bishop could consecrate other bishops for the African Catholics.

Gregory VII, on his deathbed in 1085, dreamt of forming a Christian League against Islam and said, ‘I would rather risk my life to deliver the Holy Places, than govern the Universe’.

It seems to have been the Seljuk Turkish capture of Jerusalem in 1076 that finally swung the balance, exhausted the patience of the European Christians, and fulfilled Gregory’s wish. Pilgrimage to the Holy Places had became more difficult; a poll-tax was imposed on visitors. Those who dared journey there were harassed, robbed and some even enslaved.

At the Council of Piacenza summoned by Pope Urban II and held in March 1095, Byzantine delegates emphasized the danger facing Christendom from Muslim expansion, and the hardship facing Eastern Christians until the infidel be driven back.

They repeated an appeal made by Emperor Alexius to Robert of Flanders asking him to return to the East with some knights to assist the Byzantines in their struggle with the Muslims.

Towards the end of that same year, Urban II, at another Council held at Claremont in France, took up the suggestion, and urged Europe’s Christians to ‘Take the road to the Holy Sepulchre … let each one deny himself and take up the Cross’. The Assembly rose to its feet and shouted ‘God wills it’.

1095 1st Christian Crusades begin

Muhammad died on June 8, 632 AD. It had taken four hundred and sixty three years for Europe’s Christians to combine their forces and rise up in defence of themselves and of their Faith.

~ The End ~
 
** Thanks jakasaki for giving some details of the conflict between the Muslims and the Roman Empire and the ensuing results. Please remember that these expeditions were not for spreading Islam. These were to save Islam from the imminent attacks of the enemies. Muslims had no need for any expansion. They were happy with their preaching and trading. But when the christians (Most probably the Catholics) in the nearby christian states killed some unarmed innocent Muslim traders, perhaps for preaching the new faith, the trouble started.

Then there was no end to it. You can start your story from that point onward into future years. Quite a few times the Armies of Caeser gathered at the border of the Islamic state during the life time of the prophet. When the prophet arrived with his forces, the army of the christians remained in their own territory and from there, they dispersed.

Thanks for the lesson in history.**
Thanks for proving my point about changing the terms.

If this was for protection, why the forced conversion? Even Rome did not force conversion like Islam did.
 
The problem with those sources is that they stereotype all Muslims in the same light, I don’t deny the existence of a violent Islamic ideology that wants to “destroy us” as you put it, this is true, but not all Muslims subscribe to this ideology.

Islam in it’s extreme form is practiced by the Wahabi / salafi movement out of Saudi Arabia, and parts of Pakistan, as well as the Deobandi movement in Afghanistan, the ideology followed by the Taliban.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahabi
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deobandi

Note, that a common thread among the two groups is following the way of the companions of the prophet “sahaba” as they believe they are the best generation after the messenger.

Another form Islam believes that most of those companions were corrupted, wicked, falsifiers, hypocrites who professed Islam outwardly but were unbelievers and pagans inwardly.

Some Muslim sects have fundamentally different beliefs than others, so you can’t lump all Muslims into one and pass judgment on them equally.
Famdigy, I am aware that not all Muslims are like this, however, the sources I cited, Robert Spencer and the websites indicated, do not necessarily lump all Muslims together, it talks of Islam as it is being practiced violently in certain parts of the world. And unfortunately, the extreme branch of Islam which is trying to take over the more moderate, is propelling people like Robert Spencer and et. al. to forewarn us of this transfiguration. I do not endorse the comments made on the website but they (the authors) seem to know what they are talking about. It’s not for nothing that Robert Spencer is in hiding. I have read some of his books, he is not a kook, he is just a guy trying to keep it real. And before anyone states otherwise, tell me first, if you read his books. God bless.
 
** These were to save Islam from the imminent attacks of the enemies. Muslims had no need for any expansion. They were happy with **their preaching and trading. But when the christians (Most probably the Catholics) in the nearby christian states killed some unarmed innocent Muslim traders, perhaps for preaching the new faith, the trouble started.
.
And planten,what about the later wars against india?Why Hajjaj bin Yusuf sent Muhammed Bin Qasim to attack india?Why muslims captured spain?Do you really think that all of these battles were to save Islam from the imminent attack?Planten try to realize,your own religion islam is a power hungry religion.And that’s why Muslim captured spain and india for thousand years.And after the invasion of Muhammed bin Qasim,Muslims came to preach islam in India,so it is clear that the Muslim attackers created a safe path for preaching Islam in the world.And later we know about Muhammed ghori or Sultan Mahmud and other monsters who came and invaded india again and again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top