It is a common complaint among some non-Muslims that Islam would not have millions of adherents all over the world, if it had not been spread by the use of force.
It spread much faster through the use of force.
The best reply to the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword is given by the noted historian De Lacy O’Leary in the book "Islam at the cross road" (Page 8):
"History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated."
That's his opinion. Troughout history many were forced to convert and many others converted to escape dhimmi status. In fact, it is still going on
today.
Forced conversions in Islamic history are not exceptional—they have been the norm, across three continents—Asia, Africa, and Europe—for over 13 centuries. Orders for conversion were decreed under all the early Islamic dynasties—Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids, and Mamluks. Additional extensive examples of forced conversion were recorded under both Seljuk and Ottoman Turkish rule (the latter until its collapse in the 20th century), the Shi’ite Safavid and Qajar dynasties of Persia/Iran, and during the jihad ravages on the Indian subcontinent, beginning with the early 11th century campaigns of Mahmud of Ghazni, and recurring under the Delhi Sultanate, and Moghul dynasty until the collapse of Muslim suzerainty in the 18th century following the British conquest of India.
Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. The Muslims in Spain never used the sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims. There was not a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the adhan, that is the call for prayers.
Muslim Spain (711-1492)
In Islamic Spain, Jews and Christians were tolerated if they:
- acknowledged Islamic superiority
- accepted Islamic power
- paid a tax called Jizya to the Muslim rulers and sometimes paid higher rates of other taxes
- avoided blasphemy
- did not try to convert Muslims
- complied with the rules laid down by the authorities. These included:
- restrictions on clothing and the need to wear a special badge
- restrictions on building synagogues and churches
- not allowed to carry weapons
- could not receive an inheritance from a Muslim
- could not bequeath anything to a Muslim
- could not own a Muslim slave
- a dhimmi man could not marry a Muslim woman (but the reverse was acceptable)
- a dhimmi could not give evidence in an Islamic court
- dhimmis would get lower compensation than Muslims for the same injury
Spain was not liberated by Crusaders but by the Spanish themselves. It's called "The Reconquista" (reconquest) and it forced the invaders (muslims) out of Spain. Yes, they were fanatic Christians and very cruel. Later the rest of Europe got troubles with them too.
14 million Arabs are Coptic Christians. Muslims were the lords of Arabia for 1400 years. For a few years the British ruled, and for a few years the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.
Copts As Persecuted: Seen as Perpetrators by Dr. Ashraf Ramelah, Voice of the Copts founder and president. A whole different story.
The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. Similarly, Islam has spread rapidly on the East Coast of Africa.
I already answered this in a former post (#49)
From 1934 to 1984 Islam increased by 235%, and Christianity had increased by 47%. May one ask, which war took place in this century which converted millions. (Reader’s Digest "Almanac", year book 1986)
That "study" is not scientific and 26 years old. Some other remarks, all people born in Malaysia are muslim (wether you like it or not). An infamous Muslim Demographics YouTube video declared that "in the Netherlands, 50% of all newborns are Muslim." -
Disproving the Muslim Demographics sums
Another interesting link :
Global statistics for all religions: 2001 AD . It's a Christian site so I don't think muslims will believe it.
Islam is not "the enemy" – irrational hatred is!
Horrendous violence is something that people from all backgrounds are capable of. From Hamas to Alabama’s Klansmen, irrational hatred and the illegitimate arguments that serve as fig leaves for it have been engines for the dehumanisation of other cultures that so often throughout history have led to needless and terrible civilian deaths.
Reminding ourselves the humanity of "the other" is a novel act for many who would rush to a prior assertions that certain groups are incorrigibly nefarious, implicitly morally inferior and need to be aggressively combated. Nonetheless, it is the capacity to do this that stops the worst parts of human nature from infecting our hearts and minds.
This is what must be fought, surely: the temptation to fall prey to simplistic narratives about the world we live in, such as the reductive notion that "a clash of civilisations" between Islam and the west is our future. If we don´t utterly reject such prescriptions with common sense as much as anything else, there remains the chance that we might just end up realising them.
I have nothing against people who use religion for personal benefit. I do have something against religious fanatics who will force their view upon others. Unfortunately for muslims is that most troublemakers of today are islamic fundamentalists who are killing innocent people because they have other beliefs or do not want to live under sharia law.
To name a few countries : Nigeria, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Phillipines, Thailand