# Did Mohammed instruct his followers to spread the faith by the sword? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 15, 2006, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-mohammed-instruct-his-followers-to-spread-the-faith-by-the-sword/372814 "2006-09-15T07:34:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2006, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-mohammed-instruct-his-followers-to-spread-the-faith-by-the-sword/372814/21 "2006-09-16T00:02:38Z")
[QUOTE=Spectre of Pithecanthropus] of no religous leader . [/QUOTE] I meant to say, "no **founding** religious leader. It’s an important difference. ---
**Author:** ![Valteron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f17d59/32.png) [@Valteron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valteron)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2006, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-mohammed-instruct-his-followers-to-spread-the-faith-by-the-sword/372814/22 "2006-09-16T00:16:32Z")
[QUOTE=Spectre of Pithecanthropus] Roger Collins, in his his _Early Medieval Europe_ made this abundantly clear. If his characterization of the career and character of Mohammed can be taken at face value, then I can think of no religous leader who was so good at strategy, conquest, and intimidation, or so willing to use those skills to further his faith. In some cases he demurred from imposing the faith on conquered towns or countries, but by and large it seems that conversion by force was the main object. [/QUOTE] Open an historical atlas (such as the Penguin Atlas of World History, Volume 1, which I have before me as I write this) and look at the map about the expansion of Islam to 750 C.E. Now, any good Muslim apologist will tell you that in his religion of peace, they only fight in self-defense, and do not impose their religion by force. All over the map of North Africa and the middle east are little crossed swords signifying battles. Heliopolis (640) and Alexandria (642) in Egypt, Jerez de la Frontera in Spain in 711. Their advance into Europe was stopped at the Battle of Poitiers in France in 732 (where they were defeated instead of winning, for once). Either Muslim armies spread Islam by force, or else something truly amazing happened. Every time a Muslim army would win a victory and invade a new country, all of the people in that country would suddenly, of their own free will, realize the truth of the new religion and convert to it, without any force or compulsion. What an amazing series of coincidences! ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2006, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-mohammed-instruct-his-followers-to-spread-the-faith-by-the-sword/372814/23 "2006-09-16T01:12:50Z")
[QUOTE=Marley23] In what context was the Pope quoting from that conversation? I have yet to hear anyone explain why or how he brought it up. [/QUOTE] Here’s the speech in which he made the quote: [http://zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94748](http://zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94748) It’s from a speech he made on the 12th at the University of Regensburg. The Pope had been a professor there from 1969-1971. The lecture is called “Faith, Reason and the University”. The speech in general deals with the question of how we deal with faith and reason, how it’s the Greek influence in Christianity that triumphs the use of reason, and how efforts to dehellenize Christianity and get back to “Original Christianity” are troubling. Here’s a quote: > [@](#): > > The university was also very proud of its two theological faculties. It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necessarily part of the “whole” of the “universitas scientiarum,” even if not everyone could share the faith which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole. This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: It had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical skepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: This, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question. > > I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by professor Theodore Khoury (Muenster) of part of the dialogue carried on – perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara – by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both > > . . . . > > In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point – itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself – which, in the context of the issue of “faith and reason,” I found interesting and which can serve as the starting point for my reflections on this issue. > > In the seventh conversation (“diálesis” – controversy) edited by professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that sura 2:256 reads: “There is no compulsion in religion.” It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under [threat]. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Koran, concerning holy war. > > Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels,” he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” > > The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. “God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably (“syn logo”) is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…” > > The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practice idolatry. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2006, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-mohammed-instruct-his-followers-to-spread-the-faith-by-the-sword/372814/24 "2006-09-16T01:22:04Z")
[QUOTE=Marley23] In what context was the Pope quoting from that conversation? I have yet to hear anyone explain why or how he brought it up. [/QUOTE] Strangely, it was a stand-up comedy routine. Very uncharacteristic for this particular pope. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2006, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-mohammed-instruct-his-followers-to-spread-the-faith-by-the-sword/372814/25 "2006-09-16T02:11:21Z")
In Genesis 27:40, there appears to be a command to “live by your sword”. If both Christians and Muslims are commanded to do this then that would partially explain the Crusades. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2006, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-mohammed-instruct-his-followers-to-spread-the-faith-by-the-sword/372814/26 "2006-09-16T02:12:28Z")
Addressing the OP, the answer of course is there is no clear answer. Mohammed’s actions, words and relevant passages from the Qur’an can all be read as being occasionally contradictory and can, were and are interpreted in a variety of ways. Trying to break it down: 1.) Did Muhammed ( or the Qur’an ) mandate _conversion_ by the sword? Probably not. Some of his own actions were distinctly squirrely in that regard, but “apologists” would generally argue that those were site specific exceptions that aren’t backed up by his own words ( others of course would argue the opposite ). The argument against is that there are no passages in the Qur’an specifically mandating forcing a change of religion and to the contrary there are passages demanding tolerance for at least the Abrahamic faiths ( later extended to others on a case by case basis ) and declaring that religion should never be compelled. The oft raised counter-argument to that, is that the “gentler” passages ( or at least some of them ) of the Qur’an were abrogated by more aggressive passages that demanded war and intolerance. However that has historically been a minority view, not widely accepted by most Islamic theologians. Even those that do agree with such an interpretation, generally don’t buy into forced conversions as being theologically justified ( instead they might argue more for subjugation, not necessarily conversion ). But perhaps more to the point, it is a historical fact that Muhammed’s companions and the generations that immediately followed made no attempt at conversion of their newly conquered populations, forced or otherwise. Indeed for a little over a century conversion was positively discouraged as it raised thorny questions of economic disparity, Arab Muslims at the time being virtually exempt from tax ( except the small _zakat_ or alms tax ). This wasn’t finally settled until the Abbasid revolution of 749, when Islam definitively embraced universalism as a faith. Forced conversions ( or as good as ) really only began to appear around the 10th century, during the period when the old Pax Islamica was beginning to fracture. In particular the Fatimids in Egypt began to adopt harsh methods that began the steady conversion of what had been up to that point an overwhelmingly Christian region. 2.) Did Muhammed ( or the Qur’an ) mandate the _spread of Islamic rule_ by the sword, distinct from conversion? Here the answer is much more equivocal. Or in other words, maybe. Certainly one can point to a whole panoply of passages that point towards a general view of Islam as destined to rule the world and as the True Faith, to be enshrined as superior to all others. Not unique, certainly, but it is of course backed up not only by Muhammed’s own campaigns in Arabia, but the armed eruption of Islam out of the penninsula in the years after his death. The Dar al-Harb/Dar al-Islam dichotomy ( and various closely related terminology ) we can dismiss for the nonce, as that was a philosophy proposed long after Muhammed’s death in the period when the Caliphate was at its peak and seemed destined to sweep all before it. The counter-argument would be to cite the “tolerant” passages mentioned earlier, as well as citations that would seem to indicate armed conflict as being mandated only when under threat ( such a threat being amorphously defined and hence twistable, naturally ). In this view Muhammed himself only struggled against those that sought to oppress and destroy him, the Arab conquests were mediated by the inheritance of old feuds with the client states of the Byzantine and Persian empires that then snowballed as those weakened edifices were breached and that Islamic triumphalism was ultimately a post hoc justification for an unexpectedly lucrative empire-building process ( as with the Dar al-Hard/Dar al-Islam notion above ). Well, again - maybe. There are certainly Muslim pacifists and most Muslims today would probably not agree that the conquest of the world is a religiously mandated duty. One can even find medieval rulers ( very few ) that adopted a deliberately non-expansionist policy for religious reasons ( the Umayyad Caliph Umar II being perhaps the most prominent example ). But most of their medieval counterparts probably would have embraced the duty to expand where and when possible. Interpretations of scripture ( and related and disputed sources like hadith ) are always pretty malleable. Like everything else in religion, it just depends how you wanna look at it. So, sorry - no definitive answers to be found here :). Oh and my advice would be to beware those that claim they DO have the definitive answer ;). In either, or better yet, ANY direction. - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2006, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-mohammed-instruct-his-followers-to-spread-the-faith-by-the-sword/372814/27 "2006-09-16T03:11:25Z")
[QUOTE=Valteron] If my posting is unacceptable for the GQ section, go ahead and cut it or move it to GD. Like I really care! [/QUOTE] What you care about is of little concern here. A question was asked in **General Questions** –a Forum devoted to answering questions with facts. You responded with an opinion piece that was very short on factual presentation of history and very long on a diatribe against one belief system. In the midst of your diatribe, you quoted (out of context) a handful of passages, but failed to produce evidence that the immediate followers of Muhammad actually interpreted them in the manner that you wished to interpret them. Therefore, you did not provide a factual answer to the question and used this Forum to promote your own personal feelings toward a particular group. The issue is not one of moving this thread (which you did not initiate) so that you could have a freer hand in spreading your personal prejudices. Rather, the issue is one of you posting in accord with the rules of the board. I see no reason to move this thread because you are unable to behave yourself. If you want to bash Islam, open your own thread in the appropriate Forum. I will, however, note that if you are unable to control your behavior, you do not need to post on the SDMB. ---
**Author:** ![scoots](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b77776/32.png) [@scoots](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scoots)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2006, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-mohammed-instruct-his-followers-to-spread-the-faith-by-the-sword/372814/28 "2006-09-16T03:56:44Z")
Valteron, you’re thinking of Ayesha not Alisha. I think the important debate here is not so much whether islam dictates conversion by the sword but why Pope Benedict chose to use the quote he did. Islam, in it’s original form, does not particularly _mandate_ forced conversion. Such forcible advances as islam has made over the years have been more outcomes of its own belief in its righteousness than any ideological foundations. Muslims have thought: “Since this belief comes from God then it can only be good that others are brought to its belief however they come round to it, even if they need to be forced” This argument has been used to justify any number of ideological causes including democracy and christianity. I once had a christian try to convert me by arguing that it was like I was standing on a busy road and about to get knocked over by a car - it was his duty to throw himself at me and knock me off the road because I was unaware that I was in danger (since I hadn’t seen the car). Of more interest is why Benedict thought to make this point (about islam being spread through violence). What was the point he was trying to make by raising this old quote? This may be a GD discussion and I’m surprised no one has opened a thread about it. ie the important discussion here is the relationship between christianity and islam at the present time. Islam was indeed spread by military conquest in it’s early years throughout north Africa in the sense that muslim armies invaded and conquered the countries around there. Yet the outcry from muslims at the moment sounds like they are trying to deny this or something. I don’t really understand what either side is arguing. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2006, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-mohammed-instruct-his-followers-to-spread-the-faith-by-the-sword/372814/29 "2006-09-16T08:44:26Z")
[QUOTE=Marley23] In what context was the Pope quoting from that conversation? I have yet to hear anyone explain why or how he brought it up. [/QUOTE] I haven’t read his original speech for context yet. He claims he didn’t mean to denigrate the Islamic religion, but to say that violence in the name of religion is unacceptable, no matter which religion, that all “religious-based” \* violence should stop. However, at this point, context doesn’t matter anymore. As our evening news commentator said, religious fanatic Muslim leaders got something on a silver platter to incite the masses with, and can now demand outragous things (like an apology from the Pope) to further incite people when the exaggerated demands aren’t met. - Most religious-based violence is of course not related to the religion itself, but religion used as a handy tool from populist to manipulate people with, just like ethnicity isn’t in itself a reason to fight, but only a button that the leaders push. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2006, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-mohammed-instruct-his-followers-to-spread-the-faith-by-the-sword/372814/30 "2006-09-16T09:01:28Z")
[QUOTE=scoots] Islam was indeed spread by military conquest in it’s early years throughout north Africa in the sense that muslim armies invaded and conquered the countries around there. Yet the outcry from muslims at the moment sounds like they are trying to deny this or something. I don’t really understand what either side is arguing. [/QUOTE] To borrow from Tamerlane’s excellent post, he differentiates between forcible conversion (not commanded, and in history mostly NOT done by Muslim rulers) and the laws taken from Islam in conquered countries. I would like to add that in conquered Christian countries at that same time period, laws were taken from the Christian Bible. There weren’t many (or none) secular states around in the 8th or 11th century. And history shows that the Muslim-ruled countries with mixed faiths (the famous Spain example) were more tolerant of other religions than the Christian-ruled ones. Today, now that western countries are secular (after a long and hard struggle to wrest the power away from the Christian Church/Pope, and chuck out religiously motivated laws in favour of only-secular system), the countries with majority of Moslems look backward because they haven’t yet made that step. (I wonder how much more difficult the fractured nature of Islam makes this. It’s easy to rebel against the Pope, because the one-man system exemplifies its own problems and corruptions. But without a central authority, and a plehtora of interpretations and ideas, you can’t rebel against anything, because there’s always a fellow hardliner or liberal to agree with you, and others to disagree with you. You can’t rally everybody behind you if everybody has their own opinion.) But just as Christianity isn’t inherently advocating to opress people of other religions and deny them their rights, or burn witches at stake, or torture “crypto-Jews”, or force Jews to convert - although that all has happened in history in the name of christianity - Islam in itself isn’t inherently bent on conquering the whole world, despite the twisting some fundies do. You can twist any text and any words to justify anything. ---
**Author:** ![ratatoskK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ratatoskk/32/2987_2.png) [@ratatoskK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ratatoskK)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2006, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-mohammed-instruct-his-followers-to-spread-the-faith-by-the-sword/372814/31 "2006-09-16T14:57:46Z")
At the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul, there is a room containing relics of Mohammed (his sword, beard hairs, etc.). One of them is a letter he wrote to some king in another country. As I recall, it was basically saying that he had a choice to either surrender and obey Islam or else be conquered by force. There is a [translation of the letter](http://www.angelfire.com/ny/dawahpage/hist4.html) at this site. > [@](#): > > There is safety and security for those beleivers who follow the correct path. Therefore, I invite you to accept Islam. If you accept it, you shall find security, save your throne, gain twice as much reward for having introduced Islam to your followers. If you refuse this invitation, let the sin of the calamity which awaits your followers be upon you. You too are People of the Book; therefore, let us come to a word common between us and you, that we worship none but Allah and shall not associate anyone with Him. Let us not abandon Allah and take others for Lord other than Him. If you do not consent to this invitation, bear witness that we are Muslims. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2006, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-mohammed-instruct-his-followers-to-spread-the-faith-by-the-sword/372814/32 "2006-09-16T15:38:44Z")
[QUOTE=ratatoskK] As I recall, it was basically saying that he had a choice to either surrender and obey Islam or else be conquered by force. [/QUOTE] And yet, there is nothing in the text that directly supports a reading that he was threatening war. He talks about the calamity of the sin falling upon those who are not saved because they did not embrace Islam. It may be convenient, in retrospect, to claim that it was a threat of attack, but it does not actually include any reference to war or conquest and Muhammad never launched a war against any of the purported recipients of these letters. ---
**Author:** ![ratatoskK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ratatoskk/32/2987_2.png) [@ratatoskK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ratatoskK)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2006, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-mohammed-instruct-his-followers-to-spread-the-faith-by-the-sword/372814/33 "2006-09-16T15:51:17Z")
After he wrote the letter (to the leader of the Copts in Egypt), he invaded Egypt. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2006, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-mohammed-instruct-his-followers-to-spread-the-faith-by-the-sword/372814/34 "2006-09-16T16:28:04Z")
[QUOTE=ratatoskK] After he wrote the letter (to the leader of the Copts in Egypt), he invaded Egypt. [/QUOTE] Muhammed died before any expansion took place outside of Arabia. He never sent an expedition against Egypt. He did send an expeditionary force in 629 against the Arab client state of the Ghassanids ( vassals of the Byzantines ) after they killed an envoy, which ended up being repulsed. But that was within the confines of the penninsula, which still wasn’t fully subdued at his death. Egypt was first invaded in 641 on the individual initiative of an Arab commander named 'Amr b. al-'As ( at that time the Caliphate was under Umar, who pursued a very decentralized policy ). He completed the conquest quickly - by 643 Alexandria, the last holdout, capitulated. - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2006, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-mohammed-instruct-his-followers-to-spread-the-faith-by-the-sword/372814/35 "2006-09-16T17:27:48Z")
The question the OP should have asked is, "Does the Koran offer clear and unequivocal rationales for conversion by force that could be used by those who are inclined to that route? And the answer seems to be, “Yes, yes it surely do.” There are other passages that advocate tolerance, but if you want to convert by force, you can find backup in the Koran. Like all of the Great Sky Fairy books, the Koran offers plenty of fodder for interpretation. As Ned Flanders said of the Bible, “Lord, I’ve always tried to believe everything in the Bible, even the stuff that clearly contradicts the other stuff …” But if you want a justification for conversion by force, it’s hard to argue that the Koran doesn’t offer any. Because it does. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2006, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-mohammed-instruct-his-followers-to-spread-the-faith-by-the-sword/372814/36 "2006-09-16T20:39:06Z")
[QUOTE=Evil Captor] The question the OP should have asked is, "Does the Koran offer clear and unequivocal rationales for conversion by force that could be used by those who are inclined to that route? [/QUOTE] Why? The OP asked a perfectly legitimate question on its own. Your answer provides an observation on the human condition (that just about any religious work not written by Kahlil Gibran can provide passages to rationalize aggression), but the point of the OP is highlighted by **Valteron** ’s response, in which he (as many other people) attempted to characterize the religion as inherently aggressive and as founded with that intention. Thus far, we have not yet seen evidence of that position, (regardless what people will do with any belief system), so the OP has provided a useful exploration of the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2006, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-mohammed-instruct-his-followers-to-spread-the-faith-by-the-sword/372814/37 "2006-09-17T01:38:02Z")
[QUOTE=Evil Captor] Strangely, it was a stand-up comedy routine. Very uncharacteristic for this particular pope. [/QUOTE] He wears a number of hats in acting in the Papal office. ---
**Author:** ![Valteron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f17d59/32.png) [@Valteron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valteron)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2006, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-mohammed-instruct-his-followers-to-spread-the-faith-by-the-sword/372814/38 "2006-09-17T15:42:39Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] Your answer provides an observation on the human condition (that just about any religious work not written by Kahlil Gibran can provide passages to rationalize aggression), but the point of the OP is highlighted by **Valteron** ’s response, in which he (as many other people) attempted to characterize the religion as inherently aggressive and as founded with that intention. Thus far, we have not yet seen evidence of that position, (regardless what people will do with any belief system), so the OP has provided a useful exploration of the issue. [/QUOTE] Wow! I have apparently achieved the status of the archetype irrational bigot! Who says I can’t amount to anything on this Board? The problem is, Tomndeb, that a question such as “Did Mohammed instruct his followers to spread the faith by the sword?” is NOT just a neutral, information-gathering question to begin with. If I were to launch into a polemic over a question such as “What is the best way to remove nose hairs?” or “Why do gas barbecues make a popping sound when you turn off the gas?” then I could understand your criticism. But a question such as the one being posed is part of a much, much broader debate. Muslims who want to tell me that Islam was originally founded as a religion of peace that in modern times just happens to be in arms because it is innocently defending itself in some dozen countries of the world are serving an agenda that is every bit as partisan as anything I have written. I have heard the argument that the various verses I quoted from the Quaran on the need for warfare were meant to apply only to a limited situation in which the infant religion was being attacked. Once again, I might bring up the same argument that is being used against my viewpoint. Do you have any proof of this? Is there a verse following those verses on warfare that says that these passages are for temporary application only? We also have many historical examples of Mohammed and his followers raiding caravans to increase their financial resources. This is a clear example of use of violence to advance the religion. I do not have the references to hand, but I will find them. Inlcuding intsructions to Mohammed that his men could enjoy the female captives of these raids. But once again, Tomndeb, I repeat. If you wish a literal, non-polemic answer to “Did Mohammed instruct his followers to spread the faith by the sword?” the answer would be “Mohammed did not instruct his followers to do anything. He merely acted as a messenger relaying what Allah wanted his followers to do.” To accept this answer, I would of corse have to accept the basic doctrine of Islam, “There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger”. So there you have your answer. No polemics, no need to continue this thread, right? ---
**Author:** ![Valteron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f17d59/32.png) [@Valteron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valteron)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2006, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-mohammed-instruct-his-followers-to-spread-the-faith-by-the-sword/372814/39 "2006-09-17T16:00:24Z")
In looking for evidence of Mohammed’s perfect willingness to use violence in the spreading of his viewpoint, you may with to look also at the Hadiths, which are collections of his comments and sayings. For other examples of Mohammed’s far-from-peaceful operational methods, I would recommend you look at [http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/](http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/), which contains not only the annotated Bible but also an annotated Quran and Book of Mormon. But getting back to the hadiths, the Muslim belief that anyone who renouces Islam should be killed is based partly on one Hadith in which a visitor to Mohammed asked him abou a prisoner who was tied up outside his home. Mohammed replied that this person had converted to Islam and then renounced it and was thus slated to die. Whether the person was killed by the sword or not is not specified, but I think this might give us insights into this man’s willingness to use violence. I am having trouble accessing other sites today (I am in the country and using a dial-up) but if anyone can find those references I would be much obliged. Also the verse in the Quran telling Mohammed’s followers they may use female captives as their sex slaves. Where and how do you suppose these women were captured if not “by the sword”? ---
**Author:** ![Valteron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f17d59/32.png) [@Valteron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valteron)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2006, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-mohammed-instruct-his-followers-to-spread-the-faith-by-the-sword/372814/40 "2006-09-17T16:21:53Z")
As I mentioned in my last post, the Hadiths are a record of things that Mohammed did and said. They were recorded by people who were his followers and who were sympathetic to him, NOT his enemies. The following is taken from the Hadiths:Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 271 (Mohammed asks) “Who is ready to kill Ka’b bin Ashraf (_i.e. a Jew who had been writing and reciting poetry against him_).” Muhammad bin Maslama replied, “Do you like me to kill him?” The Prophet replied in the affirmative. Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say what I like.” The Prophet replied, “I do (i.e. allow you).” This murder of Ashraf threw fear in the hearts of the Jews residing in Medina and the next day the Apostle of Allah said: “If you gain a victory over the men of Jews, kill them. So Muhayyisah jumped over Shubaybah, a man of the Jewish merchants. He had close relations with them. He then killed him. At that time Huwayyisah (brother of Muhayyisah) had not embraced Islam. He was older than Muhayyisah. When he killed him, Huwayyisah beat him and said: O enemy of Allah, I swear by Allah, you have a good deal of fat in your belly from his property. Muhayysah told him “By Allah if the one who has ordered me to kill him orders me to kill you, I will do it”. Huwayyisah was stupefied and asked: “By Allah would you really kill me?” Muhayyisah answered “Yes by Allah if he orders me to kill you, I will kill you”. Huwayyisah, the older brother, said: “By Allah, the religion that has made you thus is strange” and he embraced Islam.” This story is also partially recorded in collection of hadith: Sunan Abu Dawud Book 19, Number 2996. I repeat, this testimony is from Mohammed’s _friends_. Imagine if the writings of his enemies has been preserved! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-mohammed-instruct-his-followers-to-spread-the-faith-by-the-sword/372814.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-mohammed-instruct-his-followers-to-spread-the-faith-by-the-sword/372814.md?page=3)