The major reason Islam was so successful was due to chivalry and mercy towards civilians - Most merciful conquerors in history

[OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ]

All the "other laws" aren't that great either.

For example, I can't agree with:

- Amputation for theft
- Stoning to death for adultery
- Death penalty for apostacy and homosexuality
- Children ready for marriage once they hit puberty
- Non Muslims to pay a special tax
- Muslim women cannot marry non-Muslim men

You may believe these are humane and acceptable. I don't.

Thank you for accepting that slavery is acceptable in Islam. A lot of Muslims completely deny it.

Rape is wrong regardless of who carries it out.

The hadith I quoted showed that was regarded as acceptable however.

A similar example would be Indian soldiers invading a Pakistani village, killing all the men and taking the women as their property and proceeding to have sex with them.

Would that be acceptable to you?

I am not against Islam. I've taken the time to study it. And I appreciate how many people are so devoted to it.

But this is a false claim:

"The major reason Islam was so successful was due to chivalry and mercy towards civilians "

So lets start with the last part...
Arabs until very recently had very high number of minorities, some Christian denominations only survived because Muslims provided that protection, which sadly in today's more tolerant world has caused their demise ... not to mention, Jews that always found relief and safety among Muslims. Yazidis as in your previous post lived during Islamic imperial rule! Hindus did not meet the sword that was fate of North, Central and South Americans... the largest Muslim states by population today never saw Arab Armies ransack them... the largest ethnic group in South Asia Bengalis were the farthest out from direct Muslim rule... not to mention South Indian Muslims, least under direct rule.
The slaves that constantly bring up... set up largest Muslim empires... Mamluks... you think they didn't know?

Now

For example, I can't agree with:

- Amputation for theft
- Stoning to death for adultery
- Death penalty for apostacy and homosexuality
- Children ready for marriage once they hit puberty
- Non Muslims to pay a special tax
- Muslim women cannot marry non-Muslim men

What you are referring to are Sharia laws... there is a very specific reason for these and harshness... their implication in final judgment! A Muslim cannot be one if He/She doesn't believe in final judgment... Sharia offers a two pronged path... One where the perpetrator and victim keep it to themselves, in which case one supplicates the Almighty for forgiveness in hopes he may(fate unknown) and second case where it is a public crime and meets such conditions then if convicted faces penalties as prescribed, serving again two purposes, they're made an example of and justice is served, again awaiting a final judgment ...

Muslims believe the fate of whole humanity hangs in balance on the day of judgment when people would be called for their actions and their thoughts/motives and actions would be laid bare.

 

[zain41]

Thank you for admitting that slavery was allowed and encouraged.

Even the Prophet Muhammad owned and bought slaves.

I came and behold, Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) was staying on a Mashroba (attic room) and a black slave of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) was at the top if its stairs. I said to him, "(Tell the Prophet) that here is `Umar bin Al- Khattab (asking for permission to enter)." Then he admitted me.

Sahih al-Bukhari 7263 - Accepting Information Given by a Truthful Person - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

Narrated `Umar: I came and behold, Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) was staying on a Mashroba (attic room) and a black slave of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) was at the top if its stairs. I said to him, "(Tell the Prophet) that here is `Umar bin Al- Khattab (asking for permission to enter)." Then he admitted m

sunnah.com

Men were killed and the women were divided as property.

"The major reason Islam was so successful was due to chivalry and mercy"

False claim.


So Islam is like all other religions and is a religion for all time?



So the men are killed and the women are taken as captives and they are made to have sex with their captors.

And that's great wisdom to you?

OK.

Slavery is not encouraged but discouraged in islam..
You get great reward if you free a slave
you couldn’t just make anyone a slave and the process to get a slave was basically through war or trading for one

in war let’s say the muslims won, they couldn’t just free every slave because that would disenfranchise the rich of the opponent and they would keep fighting till the very end.. basically in a war like situation slaves would literally have no hope but to die if everyone was freed and I’m talking about slaves the opponents had before a war would start..

A prisoner of war could either be freed, ransomed, exchanged for a muslim one, put in jail or work for free.. what do you want to be done here be practical either he can work for free or spend the rest of his life in jail..he’s a prisoner of war after-all

..but once even if a muslim got a slave they couldn’t just oppress them.. there were rules on how to treat them.. society then was not how it is today when it comes to slavery so one has to have a different perspective even though I consider working at a McDonald’s is modernday slavery lol

Wrong it take around 200 years . it was a slow process and let not go into how it happened .

Well i suggest you do some research on that matter and how much it could get depended on the whim of the ruler.

yes your right for example when the muslims were being driven out of Spain they returned the jizya to the Jews and told them we cannot protect you no more however the Jews told the muslims to keep the jizya and let them come to Morocco with them.. this is the essence of jizya and how it should work

Actually it is about sex with captives. Do you think captive women go "Yes! lets have sex! " with the men who have just slaughtered their husbands, fathers and sons?

Be honest.

"ma malakat aymanukum "


You mean their fathers, sons and husbands were killed and they were divided as war booty (property) among the sahaba?

Yes a controlled process because it was all legalised.

The holocaust was also a controlled process.

It does not mean it is ethical.

"War booty" is basically ransacking.

In every war regardless of what race or religion rapes happen one cannot deny this this is factual and present through out history(indian soldiers rape kashmiris even though there is no war)
after a war all the men are dead, soldiers often rape the women which leads to bastard children etc etc in many cases the women have no way to feed themselves and turn to prostitution..
what islam does is eliminate this it gives these women status they are brought into a home and given rights and youll see in some cases these women have given birth to children who led great empires...

lets not be naive to human nature...70% of OXFORD STUDENTS when asked if they would rape someone knowing that there was no way they would be caught answered YES

second when it comes to hudood laws relating to sex (Homosexuality, adultery and fornicating) you need four witnesses who witness the act of penetration..the practicality of this punishment is that it is only applied if these acts are happening in public and then i agree they should be punished because a society where these things are openly happening in public would be very immoral

when it comes to cutting of the hands of a thief...there need to be 19 conditions present for that to be done ..like thief being adult,sane, not doing so under duress , hes not punished if he stole to fulfill hunger etc...which basically means that someone is stealing for fun and again personally i have no problem with that either..if a **** steals my iphone even though he could afford one cut both his arms for all i care(this has happened to me lol)

in islam marriage cannot happen without the consent of both man and woman..so again no problem if two people want to get married after reaching puberty..

 

[Suriya]

It has nothing to do with resilience but Allah has put mercy in this peoples heart. They could have routed the subcontinent quite easily. They have conquered all the way to the southern tip with different leaders. It would have in fact been much easier for them that way instead of restrain but it is not allowed for them such conduct

The biggest two reason why except Kashmir there was no regular mass conversion of Hindus of to Islam in peace times by Muslim ruler were due to three reasons.

1. Hindu kafir used to pay hefty sum of Jaziya which muslim rulers didn't want to let go.

2. All muslim rulers of India were of foreign origin who didn't want to see rise Indian Muslim population who would unite in future to threaten their rule for a Indian origin Muslim ruler.

3. They also didn't want forced conversion to unite Hindu kafirs who are huge in number and pose threat for their rule.


So yes, purely selfish and political reasons were behind no major drive to mass convert all Hindus during Muslim rule although some 40% Hindus converted to Islam through various means during these times.

 

[zain41]

The biggest two reason why except Kashmir there was no regular mass conversion of Hindus of to Islam in peace times by Muslim ruler were due to three reasons.

1. Hindu kafir used to pay hefty sum of Jaziya which muslim rulers didn't want to let go.

2. All muslim rulers of India were of foreign origin who didn't want to see rise Indian Muslim population who would unite in future to threaten their rule for a Indian origin Muslim ruler.

3. They also didn't want forced conversion to unite Hindu kafirs who are huge in number and pose threat for their rule.


So yes, purely selfish and political reasons were behind no major drive to mass convert all Hindus during Muslim rule although some 40% Hindus converted to Islam through various means during these times.

so muslims did not engage in a policy of forced conversion of hindus??

 

[Suriya]

so muslims did not engage in a policy of forced conversion of hindus??

Not in peace times and not under areas in their control except in Kashmir where Hindus and Buddhists were force converted.

But u also have remember Hindu temples were destroyed and no new Hindu temples were allowed to be built in these times.

 

[Arulmozhi Varman]

Why do you think there are 1 billion hindus today? If mongols had entered or crusaders, Vikings or even Han chinese your numbers would have been lower then 100m today. Which means they could have systemically commited genocide but this is not what they seek or wanted.

The Hindus were left alone with low tax and they multiple through the reigns of the Delhi Sultanate, Mughal etc etc

We are cos our spiritual base is strong. Islam conquered Jerusalem, so how come there thriving Christian and Jewish communities today? Cos their base is strong. Like wise for Hinduism Buddhism.

Islam spread mainly in SE Asia cos of 1 reason. India was conquered. Prior to that there was strong biway spiritual travellers from India to SE Asia. That movement stopped. That's one of the primary reason Hinduism or Buddhism wasn't able to sustain in Malaysia or Indonesia.

All other countries, whether it's Syria or Persia ,or modern Pakistan/India it's the way of the sword.

 

[zain41]

Not in peace times and not under areas in their control except in Kashmir where Hindus and Buddhists were force converted.

But u also have remember Hindu temples were destroyed and no new Hindu temples were allowed to be built in these times.

ok and i would assume that peace times would far exceed war times..when war is over it is only then a ruler starts his reign(start of peace time) and youre saying except kashmir there wasn't forced conversion during this period of peace time.. ok thank you!!

We are cos our spiritual base is strong. Islam conquered Jerusalem, so how come there thriving Christian and Jewish communities today? Cos their base is strong. Like wise for Hinduism Buddhism.

Islam spread mainly in SE Asia cos of 1 reason. India was conquered. Prior to that there was strong biway spiritual travellers from India to SE Asia. That movement stopped. That's one of the primary reason Hinduism or Buddhism wasn't able to sustain in Malaysia or Indonesia.

All other countries, whether it's Syria or Persia ,or modern Pakistan/India it's the way of the sword.

you know dalits are still converting to islam en masse right?to this day! 400 just converted this year in one sitting and i am deducing the number of conversion of dalits to islam when they first encountered it is much higher than that of today..

west africa,s/e asia, the caucuses three huge geographical areas where no armies were sent..lets just ignore them right and portray all of islam *all other countries* like you state somehow islam was spread by the sword..

Stepaniants also (like Arnold) declares that some historians have said that the conversions to Islam were sincere citing the fact that Islam offered a broader door of brotherhood, unlike the restrictive criteria of Zoroastrianism.[22]Nevertheless, Sir Thomas Arnold does acknowledge that the persecution of Zoroastrians did take place later on.[23]Stepaniants states that the real persecution took place during the reign of the Abbasids, and around that time was when the Parsi exodus took place.[24]. But regardless, both Arnold and Stepaniants say that the Islam is not to blamed (entirely, according Stepaniants alone, although she does defend Islam by stating that persecution of Zoroastrians isn't found within the Islamic teachings) for the decline of Zoroastrianism

so this scholar is arguing that Zoroastrian conversion for the most part was sincere but somehow you know more..

 

[Chhatrapati]

Wonder why Ahoms and further east weren't fascinated by the idea that they resisted effectively ending the "chivalrous and merciful expansion".

 

[Trango Towers]

Hummm,

Islam has a history of merciful conquers starting from Mohammad bin Qasim to bagadadi. World has never seen such merciful conquers.

The fact you are talking is a mercy.
I have a complain against Muhammed bun Qasim...why he allowed genetic crap to survive in India

 

[zain41]

The fact you are talking is a mercy.
I have a complain against Muhammed bun Qasim...why he allowed genetic crap to survive in India

bro they are lucky they encountered muslims(under who they enjoyed high ranking government and even military positions) and not christians..imagine the conquistadors..there would have been 5 or 6 hindus left today

 

[24 Hours]

I'd argue the Achaemenids led by Cyrus I were more benevolent but that is much farther in the past .

Anyway, what was seen as benevolent or merciful in the past probably wouldn't be viewed the same as today. Jizya is fairly benevolent compared to many religious intolerant societies around the same time. But today, such an idea is unacceptable to be applied in the present.

Anyway, conquerors are conquerors. You can lead any army without some degree of brutality. And of course, let's not deny all atrocities that may have occurred under muslim conquest but let's not follow the Indian narrative that they were the devil spawn.

 

[Itachi]

Look at these Indians going up in arms saying Islam allowed slavery (always did, we never said it didn't).....when they're happy selling their sons and daughters in slavery to the West and to the Arabs just for some $$$.

Slavery is a well known phenomenon that has existed since man existed, Islam just made it a easier process for both the slaver and the enslaved, paving the way for the emancipation of the slave. No other religion, culture or group of people did that. The Europeans only got rid of slavery, after thoroughly abusing the system, when they saw no more need of it just a few centuries ago.

If certain folks are looking into unverified and obscure Hadiths to prove their points, I and others can definitely bring up Hindu scriptures with processes much more horrifying than slavery. So, go read and object to your pagan religion before pointing fingers at us.

 

[Buddhistforlife]

If islam was spread by the sword how are malaysia, indonesia and west africa muslim regions?
muslims ruked india for a 1000 years according to that logic all of india should have been muslim by now
If you look at muslim countries in the caucus they became muslims after the mongols who were actually invaders converted to islam

islam being spread by the sword is a myth

Muslim rulers could not convert Hindus into Muslims forcedfully in India because the population of India was extremely huge. One cannot simply enforce Islam on a population of 160 to 200 million.

However countries with low population like Iran which was a fully Zoroastrian country but during the Rashidun Caliphate forced conversions did occur and many Parsia fled to India to avoid persecution of the Khalifah.

Muslims fought in every corner of the known world but in all of that there was one common occurance.

And to this day I see some weird slender but the truth is completely different and the history books are there as evidence.

- The reason for this Chivalry and mercy towards taken cities and city dwellers such as the non-combatant, Women, elderly and children and it didn't matter which religion group they belong to but they were spared and it was their right to be spared. Alot of people may misunderstand and think these conquerors wanted this way no it was never their choice they simply follow the laws and guidelines of Islam which gives them a direct redline for them to not cross and they are bound by this law and if the general acts against this he would invoke anger of his army and they would remind about the laws. He doesn't want to lose the respect of his men either. As for combatant captives it is free to either kill them, imprison them or release them.

If you read hsitory you would come to know that the common rule amongst the crusaders were to exterminate villages and cities they sack completely and kill all the inhabitants, the same with the Mongols, Asians, and the Vikings this was a common place practice.

This exactly helped spread Islam. Example people tend to assume that when muslims took a city they would convert people by the sword by what happened is quite the opposite. There is an entire verse in the quran saying ''There is no compulsory in religion''

The citizen has freedom to worship whatever he wanted but there is a Jizya called Tax the citizens has to pay to the state and alot of people think the muslims are exempt from this but that is not true. The muslim pays something called Zakat instead and it is the same as tax while both the Muslim and non-muslim pay only 2.5% in tax so technically they both pay. I know in most countries we pay upto 20% in tax.

Most of these taken cities use to pay alot more in taxes so the muslims brought to them low tax and no compulsory.

They had the most civilized customs, laws and rules. Nowadays the majority of the world can be called globalists but muslims were the first globalists.

There were Asian sultans in Egypt, Syria and Generals, Black leaders, generals, white europeans etc etc it was a civilization where all walks of life come together. Scholars and Ulema etc etc.

The world has only catcehed up recently and in some places globalism has truly not entered and incapable of that.

False. There were no mercy towards civilians. Medina and Makkah had millions of Jews and Idolators. Many Jewish tribes especially the Banu Qurayzah were either killed or expelled from Medina. After the conquest of Makkah, the Quraysh Idolators were forcedfully expelled out of Makkah.

 

[zain41]

Muslim rulers could not convert Hindus into Muslims forcedfully in India because the population of India was extremely huge. One cannot simply enforce Islam on a population of 160 to 200 million.

However countries with low population like Iran which was a fully Zoroastrian country but during the Rashidun Caliphate forced conversions did occur and many Parsia fled to India to avoid persecution of the Khalifah.

False. There were no mercy towards civilians. Medina and Makkah had millions of Jews and Idolators. Many Jewish tribes especially the Banu Qurayzah were either killed or expelled from Medina. After the conquest of Makkah, the Quraysh Idolators were forcedfully expelled out of Makkah.

There is even a famous hadith where Prophet Muhammad ordered muslims to expel non muslims out of Arabian peninsula and a person with common sense can easily say that expulsion cannot be conducted with love and non violence.

the banu qurayza were expelled because they broke their treaty with the muslims please do some research man before posting stuff..if a tribe supports your enemy while pretending to be allies with you what would you have done???also i will need the context of the hadith since there were many jewish tribes who lived in the hejaz and were even allowed to practice jewish law in their jurisprudence

The indian narrative makes it seem like all hindus were forcefully converted to islam
im tiredof hearing iran iran iran..dont you guys have other examples..im arguing islam being spread by the sword as a whole is a myth..yes in some places it did happen that way but that is not how it was primarily spread as evidenced by west africa, caucus and south east asia (tired of repeating myself)..even when it comes to india i feel it was dalits who primarily converted and are still converting to this day

When it comes to iran scholars argue that the population was susceptible to islam and their conversions were sincere(quotes posted in earlier posts)..yes some parsis did flee to india unfortunately youll find groups of people being persecuted throughout history and you can’t just blame Islam for that when the Persians were doing the same thing for a millennia..

 

[W.11]

If islam was spread by the sword how are malaysia, indonesia and west africa muslim regions?

The rulers converted and their subjects also converted, its not through swords that any religion spreads, ashoka spread buddhism in his domain, then kushans spread it in their domains/ inner central asia, then chinese emperors became buddhist and spread in their domains, japanese kings spread in their domain as well, some bitter iranians claim that they were forced to convert to islam even though iranians had ruling elite during abbasids, many persians became religious imams and scholars like abu hanifa giving birth to hanfiya order.

Same is the case with the hindutvas who like to claim forced conversion, if that was true no hindutvas would have been left today.

regards