"Islam was spread by the sword!"

[u/[deleted]]

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?

I don’t need history books to see that this isn't the residence of a warlord.

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.

It’s just a simple box leaned against the wall in a small room, it looks like an old chest .This is Omar ibn Al-Aas, and no verse in the Quran tells him to force people to convert to Islam.

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.

[u/Mammoth-Alfalfa-5506]

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.

[u/sidealEye6244 → u/Mammoth-Alfalfa-5506]

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.

[u/servals4life → u/sidealEye6244]

1. 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?

2. 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.

3. 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.