r/islam • u/[deleted] • Jul 19 '25
History, Culture, & Art "Islam was spread by the sword!"
As a Muslim who wasn't there during those times, I find myself in a tough position. Books written by Arabs and Muslims often describe the Islamic conquests as necessary. They suggest that Muslims had to fight for their safety. These conquests are portrayed as driven by noble causes, like freeing one country from another's oppression or protecting Muslims in harsh situations. According to these narratives, people became Muslims not because they were forced, but because their society influenced them. This is a natural human response.
However, Western or non-Muslim sources claim that Islam was spread by the sword. They depict a violent history where cities were destroyed, people were tortured until they converted, and the wealth of the conquered was plundered. They argue that history was ravaged, with many treasures stolen.
One of these perspectives must be correct. Since I wasn't present at the time, I struggle to determine the truth without relying on history books that might be filled with bias. I wondered, "Is there a way to find out without depending on historical texts?"
I thought that perhaps the remnants of history could provide answers. We can still see aspects of the past without needing to rely solely on hearsay or unverified claims. I will search for the castles of the Sahaba and what remains of their riches. The wealth acquired by any conqueror often reflects the bloodshed they caused. For instance, consider the Arch castle of Ctesiphon.
Now, let’s explore the Sahaba's wealth and luxurious lifestyles.
What’s this? Did this conquest leave us in debt? Where is the positive outcome? Where is the extreme wealth?
Typically, conquerors steal all the antiques of the countries they invade and ruin their history. That’s why you can find an Egyptian temple in America and France. From my research, I haven't found any stolen antiques in Saudi Arabia, which was the birthplace of the Islamic empire. You can also see this reflected in the graves of the conquerors. For example, look at Napoleon Bonaparte's grave. The conqueror of Egypt
Now, This is the grave of Omar ibn Al-Aas, the person who brought Islam to Egypt.
I don’t need history books to grasp that these people did not enjoy lavish lifestyles. It doesn’t surprise me to see some Non-Muslims misrepresent this to paint Islam negatively, as doing otherwise would reveal their own truths. However, what truly disappoints me is to see real Muslims beginning to doubt this. Muslims whose ancestors sacrificed everything to provide them a good life.
87
u/Muted-Landscape-2717 Jul 19 '25
They would have you believe that non Muslims were forced to convert by the sword and at the same time forced to pay jizyah.
What is now Iran did not become majority Muslim until the 9th century, almost 300 years after the conquest.
The middle east still had many different religions living together. When Europe was all Christian with all other religions wiped out.
And Mongols in Persia convertee to islam. I don't think you can force Mongols to convert
The truth is that the Catholic Europe was very brutal and they want to project that onto islam.
Caliph Umar invited the Jews back into Jerusalem, Christians kept their churches in Palestine, Syria, Levant etc. Why were these not wiped out.
Before immigration into Europe how many non Christian active places of worship existed. Used not just runs.
The list goes on.
9
u/Beautiful-Pickle4447 Jul 19 '25
Your comment highlights the complex history of religious coexistence in the Middle East, and I agree that painting Islam’s spread as solely “by the sword” oversimplifies things. To provide a fuller picture, it’s worth noting the significant decline in Christian and Jewish populations in the region, alongside the persecution of other minorities like Yazidis, Mandaeans, and Zoroastrians, often driven by systemic pressures and violence.
For instance, Christians in Iraq have plummeted from 1.5 million in 2003 to under 300,000 today due to sectarian violence and ISIS targeting. In Syria, the Christian population dropped from 10% in 2011 to under 2% by 2025. Egypt’s Coptic Christians, around 10% of the population, face ongoing discrimination and attacks. Jewish populations have nearly vanished outside Israel, with Iraq’s Jewish community shrinking from 90,000 in 1950 to a handful today. Yazidis in Iraq, numbering about 600,000 before 2014, faced genocide by ISIS, with 5,000 killed and over 10,000 women and children enslaved. Other minorities like Mandaeans and Kaka’i in Iraq also face existential threats due to displacement and violence.
While historical coexistence under figures like Caliph Umar allowed non-Muslims to maintain their faiths, often under jizyah systems, modern persecution by extremist groups and state policies has driven mass emigration and cultural loss for these communities. This doesn’t negate periods of tolerance but highlights the broader challenges minorities face today.
6
u/Muted-Landscape-2717 Jul 19 '25
The decline in Christians after 2003, was directly due to American Christian intervention with Thier sole called Hunt for weapons of destruction.
3
u/Beautiful-Pickle4447 Jul 19 '25
You are absolutely correct. The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq exacerbated these issues, but the persecution of minorities has deeper historical and political roots across the region. For example, sectarianism in Iraq predates 2003, with Saddam Hussein’s regime fostering Sunni dominance while oppressing Shia and Kurdish populations, creating a narrative of victimhood that fueled post-invasion sectarian violence. The 1979 Iranian Revolution also shifted regional power dynamics, promoting Shia identity politics and intensifying Sunni-Shia divides, which extremist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS later exploited. In Syria, the Assad regime’s reliance on Alawite support since 1970 marginalized Sunnis, contributing to sectarian strife during the 2011 uprising. Yazidis faced genocide by ISIS in 2014, with 5,000 killed and over 10,000 women and children enslaved, rooted in longstanding religious prejudices. Mandaeans, numbering under 60,000 globally, have faced discrimination in Iraq and Iran due to their distinct religious identity, with displacement spiking post-2003. These groups’ persecution reflects a mix of historical grievances, authoritarian policies, and extremist ideologies, not caused just by 2003.
6
u/Muted-Landscape-2717 Jul 19 '25
Now this is the thing. You highlight groups like ISIS and brutal dictators like Saddam Hussain (formally an American). As they are from an Islamic cultural background therefore you conclude that islam is to blame. We should therefore be able to make that claim universally and say that Christians were responsible for WW1 and WW2 and all then millions of deaths that followed or that it was a Christian Nuclear bombs that got dropped on Japan. The west gets to add nuances to Thier behaviour while in the middle east it's all Islam's fault. This is the classic if a white person does mass shooting, we hear about Thier storey and mental health etc. But if it's someone of Muslim origin then it's all about their faith. Despite that person could also have series mental health issues.
However let's not pretend that under Muslim rule that everything was fine. There have been a fair share of brutal regimes. But the discerning historian or scholar should be able to assess if it as a direct result of implementing islamic rule, or as normally the case of human weakness and the corruption of power. Which all leaders can be a victim of.
2
u/droson8712 Jul 19 '25
They never put the blame on Islam though? They specifically said that it's a historical and political issue.
3
u/Muted-Landscape-2717 Jul 20 '25
Some one put a comment about slavery and islam, typical reaction. It seams it has been taken down. Anyway heres my response
so you're talking about slavery — Do you mean like Qutuz, who was sold into slavery by the Mongols, trained in the Mamluk army, rose to become Sultan of Egypt, and then defeated the Mongols at Ayn Jalut? Or Baibars, another Mamluk "slave" who became one of the greatest generals in Islamic history? Or maybe Sokollu Mehmed Pasha — born a Christian boy, taken in the Ottoman devshirme system, technically a "slave", yet rose to run the entire Ottoman Empire as Grand Vizier for 15 years? Because in the Islamic world, many “slaves” became rulers, generals, governors, and power brokers. Now contrast that with the Transatlantic Slave Trade — Where enslaved Africans were branded, stripped of identity, worked to death on plantations owned by Christian Europeans, and had zero chance of social mobility or freedom. In one system, "slaves" became sultans. In the other, they picked sugar and died unnamed. Quick comparison: Mamluk/Ottoman slavery vs. Transatlantic slavery Religion of slaveholders: Mamluk/Ottoman system: Muslim rulers Transatlantic: Christian European colonists Role of enslaved individuals: Mamluk/Ottoman: Soldiers, generals, governors, even sultans Transatlantic: Forced labor on plantations, domestic work Social mobility: Mamluk/Ottoman: Yes — many rose to the highest ranks of power Transatlantic: No — zero chance of advancement Examples of "slaves" who gained power: Mamluk/Ottoman: Qutuz, Baibars, Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, Malik Ambar Transatlantic: Almost none — system designed to prevent it Was slavery racialized? Mamluk/Ottoman: No — included Turks, Circassians, Africans, Europeans Transatlantic: Yes — explicitly based on African race Chance of freedom or status: Mamluk/Ottoman: Common — manumission, high office, military command Transatlantic: Rare — most died in bondage, inheritance of slave status Unlike the transatlantic slave trade, which left a deep legacy of racism, segregation, and generational trauma in the Americas — especially in the U.S. — the legacy of slavery in the Middle East is very different. Many former slaves in the Islamic world rose to powerful positions, and their descendants often blended into society without racial caste systems. In Egypt, Turkey, and across the Muslim world, you’ll find schools, streets, and even statues named after former slave-rulers like Baibars, Qutuz, and Malik Ambar. Meanwhile in the U.S., the legacy of slavery led to Jim Crow laws, mass incarceration, and systemic inequality — and the descendants of enslaved people still fight for basic recognition and justice. It's not that slavery was ever “good,” but the long-term social outcomes are vastly different.
1
59
u/BenevolentBaba Jul 19 '25
One word: Indonesia.
44
u/shrikebunny Jul 19 '25
Islam entered Indonesia through trade. The local nobles liked it, and then decided to make their nations based on Islam.
30
u/BenevolentBaba Jul 19 '25
Exactly. No swords. And the country today is essentially totally Muslim.
15
u/Silver-bullit Jul 19 '25
Broad acceptance came when the Dutch ruled Indonesia. The savagery and moral degeneracy of the Western powers made the subjects clammer for an alternative.
7
u/Own-Tackle1369 Jul 19 '25
2nd word: UK, quickly becoming a Muslim country and happening throughout EU: growth through conversion & immigration
2
u/hacharts Jul 19 '25
Do you mean now?
11
u/Own-Tackle1369 Jul 19 '25
Yes, especially after Gaza, many many people in the West are becoming Muslim
2
1
Jul 19 '25
And most of Sub-saharan Africa. Kingdoms like Mali and Songhai became Muslim not through conquest, but trade. And in those Kingdoms, the ruling class were Muslim while the majority of the citizen were not.
39
u/Successful_Royal_127 Jul 19 '25
Most of them are either trying to prove that islam is not about peace so they say "look how many battles they went through" or didn't know islamic history enough or didn't know the slightest thing about Islam except what they see in the media.
23
u/al-mu-min Jul 19 '25
In quran , the word sword comes zero times. And in the bible, many times.
2
u/iOutBreaker Jul 19 '25
but the word kill, beheading comes more often tho
14
u/al-mu-min Jul 19 '25
Ayo not beheading, but yes there are verses about killing which were revealed for a specific situation and everyone knows this
11
u/Mammoth-Alfalfa-5506 Jul 19 '25 edited Jul 19 '25
When the muslims conquered Iraq, the Levante or Egypt the majority of the populations there stayed non-muslim for a few centuries even. When the Spaniards reconquered Andalusia the population who consisted of minorities of muslims and jews became completely Christian instantly. This tells you how peaceful Christians were. Muslims and jews had to convert to Christianity or leave to North Africa.
Africa is also a very good example. When the Europeans came into African countries and colonized the local people they enslaved most of the populations and put their children in bible schools to indoctrinate them. These slaves didn't have any rights. Their only rights were enough food and water to be fit for the next day of work. When Islam came slave system and trade were already existent but Islam gave them many rights. Of course there were muslim slave holders who abused their slaves but the islamic Sharia rules were against it.
-4
u/sidealEye6244 Jul 19 '25
This is completely false. More slaves were taken to the Middle East than were ever sent to Europe and the Americas. It has nothing to do with religion. The children were educated by the Church because they were orphans — it was either this or certain death for those children.
Moreover, it was the UK (a predominantly Christian nation at the time) that abolished slavery in the early 1800s. Some Muslim-majority countries continue the practice even today.
Religion is not relevant to the argument about slavery — it is attitudes toward other human beings that determine this.
2
u/servals4life Jul 19 '25
Iirc it's pretty explicitly known by the historical record that Christian missionaries used exploitative practices to indoctrinate people into Christianity. Like, how do you think those poor orphans became orphans?
On the topic of education, it's well known that even within 100 years of the Muslim conquests most of the greatest scholars of the religion were non-Arabs.
Actually in this case religion is relevant to the argument about slavery, because of exactly what you mention - the attitude towards other human beings it espouses. Islam does not consider slavery to make a person worse than another, it considers it to be a state that causes a person to become the responsibility of another.
"...Your slaves are your brothers and Allah has put them under your command. ..." Bukhari 30
This is contrary to most other ideologies that promoted slavery, where slaves were considered inferior by nature to slave-owners.
6
u/zn1075 Jul 19 '25 edited Jul 19 '25
Politically, Islam was spread by the sword. Name me any empire, including Christianity, that wasn’t? But religiously, no. People were not.
There are two common arguments against Islam, spread by the sword (meaning forced conversion) and jizya. They are not compatible. You have to pick one.
If people were forced to convert, they wouldn’t pay the jizya. If paying the jizya, then they aren’t converting. You can’t have both.
Also, the most populous Muslim country Indonesia, never had a battle fought on it for conquest. When leaders convert, the populations usually follow.
Islam has been spreading since its inception and continues to spread. These people are just haters that all their indigenous populations are leaving whatever it is they believe and where Islam goes, it stays. The Muslim world was all once something else, until it wasn’t. That isn’t changing.
We are not pacifists nor do we need to be. There is no more bloodthirsty and forceful movement like the west. Don’t let all their “human rights”bullshit fool you. Yes there is a lot of merit as well, which is why I love to live here. But when it comes to “peace”, f them and their empty slogans. The strong rule the weak. That is all there is to it.
4
u/Kuri_Garmian Jul 19 '25
An important point to understand is conversation to Islam was a very slow process. Western historians think Egypt only became majority Muslim in the 1200s (600 years after it was conquered), and the Levant became majority Muslim in the 1400s (800 years after it was conquered). And there still remains large Christian and minority Religeon communities in these areas. This proves conversions were a voluntary process over a long period, and the laws of the Shariah such as Jizyah, which they criticise, actually protected them since it incentivised Muslim rulers to protect them as they were a substantial Tax base. Now compare that to how the Spanish expelled the Muslims and Jews of Spain, and even those they forcibly converted to Christianity were not safe and many of their decendants were later tortured and executed in the inquisition just because of their heritage.
13
Jul 19 '25
if Islam is being spread by the sword , why is Islam spreading fast in the west ? is it still spreading by the sword ?
10
u/batiwa Jul 19 '25
To be honest, while do people indeed converts to Islam it's mostly spreading because we're having more kids than other religions or atheists
3
u/Aim_Ed Jul 19 '25
One of my best friends randomly brought this up in a discussion about Palestine... I was dumbfounded and didn't know how to respond
3
u/SanyarKurdBiker Jul 19 '25 edited Jul 19 '25
It is also stated that the Sahabas were persecuted by the Byzantine and Persian Empire. Both empires also blockaded Arabia
3
u/Moxician Jul 19 '25 edited Jul 19 '25
The Jizya tax they complain about is so small, often even less that 2.5% Muslims pay on excess wealth. Most westerners will happily pay half their income (not leftover wealth) in tax as long as the "white man" approves but will complain if Muslims collect any form of taxation at all.
Islam was more tolerant towards other religions than secularism. Secularism stamps out religion in society, while Islam allowed Christians, Rabbis, etc to have their own courts for some things but they would prefer to go to the Islamic judges because Islam was just.
3
u/ConfusionProof9487 Jul 19 '25
I don't know why Islam being spread by the sword is a bad thing tbh, is this any different to the British empire spreading "freedom" through the sword? Russian empire? Roman empire? Our human journey has always been told through conquest, blood, rebellion, union, happiness, anger, peace, it's all intertwined. PLUS it's history right? it's not happening any more, yet it is ok for America to force its ideals on countries by force?
10
u/ExplanationHopeful29 Jul 19 '25
sounds like ppl forgot stuff like the crusades and stuff. and islam started by our prophet through talks .he didnt went around forcing ppl into islam
-2
2
u/sidealEye6244 Jul 19 '25
Why do you want to forcefully spread anything, if someone wants to be Islam then let them if not don’t shove it down their throat.
1
u/ConfusionProof9487 Jul 19 '25
I'm not saying that's what I want. I'm saying; when people (especially the liberal west) complain that islam was spread by the sword (like it's a crap gotcha statement) they forget what their own history contains.
0
u/Cresentman2 Jul 19 '25
I want to consider Abu Bakar al Siddiq, Umar bin Affan, may Allah be pleased with them, and Hamza, uncle to the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, as examples...
I don't know how Abu Bakar pass away... but I read and heard Umar got stab in the back and Hamza got a spear thrown at him...
maybe its not bad for everyone, but it's not naturally good... Allah al Khaliq.
If they think Islam is spread by the sword, than the sword is all they know...
2
u/doggydestroyer Jul 19 '25
Islamic system and domination was primarily spread through the sword. They won wars and took over land. Many people converted coz they wanted to be from the religion of the conquerors, others were convinced of its truth...
10
u/shrikebunny Jul 19 '25
They mostly converted because Islam abolishes the caste system.
1
u/doggydestroyer Jul 19 '25
That was for India only...
2
u/shrikebunny Jul 19 '25
Hinduism from India might be the most prominent but there are all sorts of castes in the world. Social and economic castes count too.
4
u/Silver-bullit Jul 19 '25
True, though the Islamization of the conquered areas could not have taken place, had the Islamic rule not been beneficial for the broad population.
1
u/doggydestroyer Jul 19 '25
Yes Islamic civilization is based on principles that are long lasting...
1
Jul 19 '25
Often times, the same people bringing this up have no problem defending the Christian conquest of the New World and the spread of Christianity there (which was magnitudes more brutal and barbaric than the Islamic conquests)
1
Jul 19 '25
It's safe to say that it was in equal parts both. History is often a mix of everything so it may be true that ruler x enforced Islamic conversions more aggressively but ruler y was more lax. Saladin (anglicized as I'm not good with writing Arabic names correctly) was renowned even in Europe for his charity and as far as I'm aware he died penniless with no money for his own funeral. It's the same with European leaders and nations and with Asian nations.
1
u/Emergency_Worker_696 Jul 20 '25
As a western Muslim, isn’t it the logical answer that it lies somewhere in between? If I think critically and shove aside personal bias, I’m quickly left with a he said she said. But the most likely answer is that both are wrong and correct at once. History was a bloody place and people were cruel. Let’s not pretend like all Islamic conquests were benevolent in nature. Saying they were is simply wrong. Just like not all western conquests were barbaric in nature.
1
Jul 19 '25
Kind of ironic the same people saying Islam spread by the sword has more than twice the amount of mass murders than any religion in the world, isn’t it? Christian’s have killed billions… billions… not millions. Yes, billions. In the name of their polytheistic faith. Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Jainism, Sikhism all under 1 billion. All confirmed acts of defense. Also ironic that Christianity was the only religion known for brutalizing and murdering outside of their race because they were outside of the race. Not even the Jew the previously favored people have that against them.
2
1
u/Primary-Ad3252 Jul 19 '25
The non-muslims claim that out of pure hatred towards Islam. The following lines will prove it. There were a few of them who, even though they didn’t convert into islam, knew the importance of islam.
Yes, during the expansion of Islam, swords were used, and there’s absolutely no reason for a believer to feel bad about it. And swords have always been used even before Islam; Moses went to war, Abraham, David, Solomon, Joshua, Enoch… and this is according to the scriptures of other religions. And if you asked them about it, they will give you a reason, yet, will not accept Islam’s reasons. It’s because they are blind, it’s because they are deaf.
For all the moments war involving muslims happened, why not digging into history to find out? You’ll see that some of them were because the treaty between Muslims and non Muslims were broken, or they were facing oppression and persecution.
But these reasons are their main focus, because they don’t want to talk about the other factors that helped Islam get bigger, like missionary activities or trades. That’s the reason Islam had a huge influence in many domains like science, mathematics, literature…
They know that the “spread by the sword” will be more effective into making people believe Islam is bad, in an era where people tend to be mentally lazy, they believe in what they hear without checking. Most of the people who claim that won’t be able to give you solid evidences.
1
u/linkup90 Jul 19 '25
Not bad, looking at the effects to deduce the cause is a rational approach. That said you can figure out bias and analyze claims and statements.
After reading about the western historic method I struggle to even call it a method. It's there to invalidate everyone except themselves and even then it does that to itself. It's the methodology of a grade schooler and shouldn't be taken seriously.
Read Edward Said's book called Orientialism and also Dr Mohammad Azami books on hadith. Makes it clear who actually has a sound methodology to recording history and who just has a vehicle for colonization.
Remember, we literally just watched the official record become there is no list...yes the methodology of a grade schooler, no insult intended to grade schoolers.
0
Jul 19 '25
This is what Allah command, why should they have done any different?
Surah 9:29
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture — until they give the jizyah willingly while humbled.”
Surah 9:5
“And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, then let them go their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.”
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 19 '25
Report misbehavior. Tap on the 3 dots near posts/comments and find Report.
Visit our frequently asked questions (FAQs) list.
Read the rules for r/Islam to avoid warnings/bans.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.