freediver wrote on Nov 30
th, 2013 at 12:49pm:
Quote:Islam is very clear on the way islam must spread - through dialogue and peaceful example. If you look at the spread of islam under Prophet Muhammad, it wasn't by the sword, it was by peacefully and patiently demonstrating to outside communities what islam had to offer for society
Bull.
Muhammed the warmongerwww.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375266038 Reccommed the widely acclaimed works by both Montgommery Watt and Karen Armstrong (both non-muslims). They argue that at the time of Muhammad, the tribes of Arabia had recently transformed from a nomadic society to a mercantile one. This brought in much wealth to the people, but with it a new culture of selfish individualism - replacing the communal culture of the bedouin. This was beginning to tear apart society (what the quran describes as the age of "jahiliyya") - where previously the poor, the orphans and the destitute were taken care of by their tribe - now they were left to fend for themselves, while the merchant class got rich.
By the time of Muhammad, all this was starting to unravel - the class divide was destroying the community. They were looking for a new way, and Muhammad had the answer. Thats why the quran and the teachings of Muhammad have so much emphasis on community and the duty of the community to look after the less fortunate. This was a message that most people were already yearning for even before Muhammad starting teaching. Watt particularly gives an excellent analysis on the way the quran was revealed - where the initial verses emphasise the social message of islam - to change society to become more egalitarian - rather than emphasising the personal aspects and duties.
In short, there is a very good case to be made that Muhammad's message was already conducive for that society in that particular time and place, and thats why it spread so rapidly and so successfully. The "battles" you list are entirely inadequate for making the "spread by the sword" case. Virtually all of them were tiny, insignificant skirmishes that say a lot more about the lack of "heart" and discipline of Muhammad's enemies than the violence and ruthlessness of Muhammad's forces. They were dispirited and not particularly in a mood to fight Muhammad - and nothing about the battles that took place adequately explains this poor morale: they always had numeric superiority over Muhammad, Muhammad never launched surprise attacks that would take them off guard - he always marched his army to the enemy, implored them to submit, and only fought when the enemy attacked first.
The fact is, in many of these non-muslim communities, including the Quraysh tribe who ruled over Mecca, individual members of those communities were defecting to Muhammad in droves - so while the elites were enthusiastic as ever to fight Muhammad, their rank and file were at best dispirited and at worst disloyal. We know that this situation was so bad amongst the Quraysh, that when Muhammad signed a treaty with them, they demanded that he send back any person who defected to Medina. (Interestingly, this backfired, as the defectors got around this by setting up their own community outside Mecca and waged a guerilla campaign against the Quraysh - prompting the Quraysh to beg Muhammad to take them in and control them).
Forum
Pages: 
spineless apologetics (Read 350493 times)
