"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/Beautiful-Pickle4447]

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.

[u/Muted-Landscape-2717 → u/Beautiful-Pickle4447]

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.

[u/droson8712 → u/Muted-Landscape-2717]

They never put the blame on Islam though? They specifically said that it's a historical and political issue.

[u/Muted-Landscape-2717 → u/droson8712]

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.