The myth of "Islam is spread by the sword"


by Q

This was originally intended as a comment for this blog which was about the letter-ultimatum from the Islamic khalif Omar to the at-the-time-teenage King of Iran, Yazdgird III. That particular letter is a historial forgery, but the discussion on the blog quickly descended to one of the most favorite topic of some Arab-obsessed Iranians: the so-called "forced Islamicization" of Iran.

I thank Avaznia and Farid for their excellent points. It is of course a myth that Islam, or any religion for that matter could be spread by the sword en-mass as is always claimed by those who are short on facts, short on fuse, but long on self-righteous fantasies.

I have made the same points regarding Islam's spread to other locations many times. To begin with majority of Muslims in the world live in lands that no Arab army ever set foot in. The spread into Egypt and North Africa was hardly "Islamification by sword" of Africa. These Arab armies were at best confined to Egypt and coastal mediterranian. The idea that they could have converted half the continent and sub-saharan parts like Nigeria, Kenya, Zanzibar and Tanzania "by force" is ridiculous. By contrast most of Spain and Portugal was occupied for hundreds of years and there was hardly a mass conversion there. As with China, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Phillipines and Bangladesh, the spread through peaceful trade and dialogue is the most likely explanation.

The problem here is that some people just can't accept reality because the sense of rage and victimhood instilled in them (by mostly Western, or West-worshipping sources) is designed to perpetuate continual division and self-hatred in the region. This combined with a need to blame someone else for their problems has made these people completely delusional.

We can't accept their nominal excuses that they are simply "concerned" about bloodshed and violence against Iranians 1400 years ago because they are never concerned about other historical events where Iranians have suffered. Alexander the Great, Ganges Khan, Taimur Lang, Turks, Afghans, Brits and Russians have all defeated and occupied Iran at some point. Many of these invasions were much more violent and bloody. However these incidents don't seem to matter. Mongols alone nearly destroyed all of Iran, burning entire cities and libraries and Iran suffered genocidal massacres. The Mongol invasion is discussed today in neutral terms, even positive terms as a historical event subject to academic discussions. The Arab invasions, on the other hand are treated like they happened last week! All historical perspective and dispassionate objectivity goes out the window. Instead an ugly and at-times-racist attitude is angrily applied to the situation, overwhelming all common sense and scientific facts.

These people spend 95% of their energy demonizing Arabs and Islam and trying to blame everything on what happened 1400 years ago in Iran, all in the name of righteously "correcting" some kind of "historical injustice" to Iranians. They don't seem too bothered by the much-more-bloody historical events before and after which have caused much suffering to Iranians.

Where's the outrage for Mongols destroying much of Iran, including entire towns in the land of Attar and Ferdowsi? Where's the outrage for Russian occupation of half of Iran and forcible taking of Iranian territory only 200 years ago? It's not there because it's all fake!

Iranians themselves often engaged in just-as-cruel wars and occupations of other countries. Only a few short years before the rise of Islam, the Sassanids controlled almost all Arab lands and subjected their populations to taxes and allegiance. Iranians themselves ended a great and ancient civilizations by basically killing the last Pharaos in Egypt, basically subjecting that proud land to 2000 years of foreign rule. Why does that never enter the discussion? Don't these other people matter?

Of course they don't! The entire position is not only self-centered and hypocritical but also disingenuous.

It's not about the violence, or the suffering, or the occupation. That's just the excuse to hide the underlying bigotry. Unable to accept the reality that Iranians converted to Islam, much the same way as anybody else has converted to any other religion, these people have to construct fantasies and rewrite history in an attempt to give themselves license for bigoted, racist and islamophobic hate speech.

Arab defeat and occupation of Iran was nothing specially more bloody or cruel than all the other occupations before and after. In fact, in many respects, it was more benevolent and tolerant than the others.

This is besides the point, however, the explanation of "Islam by the sword" has been debunked by most objective scholars.

Even if we discard all the evidence and pretend somehow it is true, it would be a great insult to Iranians. Whoever really believes it must not have any respect for his/her own ancestors.

We know for a fact that millions of Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians did not convert to Islam because their population was still practicing their older faiths into the 20th century. These are populations that were also under Arab control. I'm talking about Lavantine Christians, Spanish Catholics, the Armenians, Georgians, Ethiopians, Copts in Egypt and Sudan, Hindus in present day Pakistan and Afghanistan, Zoroastrians in Iran, as well as Jews in Iran and all over the Arab world.

Are we supposed to think that these populations were more brave and cared about their religion more than Iranians did? Did their faith mean more to them? Was their morality at a higher level than the majority of Iranians who did convert? I thought "spread by the sword" means, you have to convert or die, so why do we have so many Arab Christians, Jews, Armenians and Copts? Where's the evidence that these populations even suffered more than Iranians who after all DID convert?

The truth is you can't really convert any sizable population by force. At best you would need 3 Arab soliders for every "convertee" to watch him for the rest of his life, just in case he's really acting and just going through the motions. The entire population of Arabia was only a tiny fraction of the Persian empire. It's just not possible.

And what stopped an anti-Islamic revivalism immediately after Arab rule ended? Why didn't everybody convert back to Zoroastrianism?

Mass conversion by force is not unheard of. Of course it is possible and it has been done in history, but only by forcibly seperating children from their parents, keeping them seperate and raising them with new culture and values. This was done to native Americans and native Australians, enslaved Africans in the Western-controlled world, as well as to some extent enslaved Slavic Europeans in the Ottoman empire, itself resembling an older Greek system of forced assymilation. This, however certainly did not, and could not have happened to Sassanid Iran.

I've told the usual suspects on that blog and other people these facts many times. But what we must realize that most of these people don't care about facts. They don't want to listen to reason and evidence. They are consiously or sub-consiously looking for an excuse to express self-righteous anger and hostility toward people they want to scapegoat for Iran's problems. It gives them a satisfying simplified explanation and a target to channel their anger, all while removing all responsibility from themselves.

Here's a good explanation on the subject from a respected scholar:

Some other prominant scholars on the subject.

De Lacy O'Leary wrote:
"History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated." --De Lacy O'Leary, ISLAM AT THE CROSSROADS, London, 1923, p. 8.

Karin Armstrong:

With disturbing regularity, this medieval conviction surfaces every time there is trouble in the Middle East. Yet until the 20th century, Islam was a far more tolerant and peaceful faith than Christianity. The Qur'an strictly forbids any coercion in religion and regards all rightly guided religion as coming from God; and despite the western belief to the contrary, Muslims did not impose their faith by the sword.

The early conquests in Persia and Byzantium after the Prophet's death were inspired by political rather than religious aspirations. Until the middle of the eighth century, Jews and Christians in the Muslim empire were actively discouraged from conversion to Islam, as, according to Qur'anic teaching, they had received authentic revelations of their own. The extremism and intolerance that have surfaced in the Muslim world in our own day are a response to intractable political problems - oil, Palestine, the occupation of Muslim lands, the prevelance of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, and the west's perceived "double standards" - and not to an ingrained religious imperative.

source: //

Even the neo-con sage and history professor Bernard Lewis from his new 2008 book:

"The fanatical warrior offering his victims the choice of the Koran or the sword is not only untrue, it is impossible."

"Generally speaking, Muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in Christendom, until the rise of secularism in the 17th century."

Opinion of Mahatma Gandhi on the matter:

"I become more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers and his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle." -- Young India, 1924

See also Le Gall and McDonough.


more from Q
Sargord Pirouz

Islam is not all-Arab

by Sargord Pirouz on

A lot of this commentary supposes that Islam is an all-Arab cultural entity. That's unrealistic. A Persian influence within Islam, ever since its spread into our plateau, cannot be denied. In fact, with the inclusion of Salman e Farsi, its been there since the beginning. And the religious mosaic of its time and space is well reflected within the Koran itself.

Even the modern conception of the Shia variant addresses a very Iranian requirement for religion. 

The sword? Yes, it played a part as it does in many human endeavors. But do not underestimate the soft power role of influence in shaping and continuing a religion with a foundation based upon aspects of Persianate society, encompassing as it does a vast swath of middle eastern and central asian territory we refer to as Irān-e Bozorg. 


Well said Hooshie

by divaneh on

For Muslims the measure is Quran and deeds and words of the Prophet (Hadith). Here are two hadith to add to verses and you can find plenty more.

Bukhari (2:24) - "Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."

Bukhari (59:643) - "Testify that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah, or else I will chop off your neck!"  Words of a military leader that Muhammad sent on an expedition with the mission of destroying a local religion in Yemen.

There are also plenty of verses who avoid violence and forced conversion but they did not seem to work as shown by the lack of interest in Islam after 13 years of preaching in Mecca. However the day that Mecca was captured, even Abu Sophyan became a Muslim and saw the light of Allah.

Q, you have not met Haleh challenge. It does not matter where she gets her information. You claimed that there was not force conversion and she listed the wars for spread of Islam. We all know that the residents of the defeated lands had to convert to Islam or die if they did not belong to a Saami religion i.e. Jewism, Christianity, and derivatives. There was also social and financial pressure on non-muslim to encourage conversion. Once converted the penalty for choosing a different religion was death.

On your second point, please do not confuse the matter. The question of this blog was not only Iran. It was forced conversion in Islam. And yes, the non Arab armies such as Mughuls and Turks had a big share in spread of Islam. For your 500M Indian Muslim and beginning of Islam in India please follow the link below.


What you call "fanatical Islamophobia escapegoatism" is the result of forcing Islamic rules on a society who clearly needs modern laws and is sick of the rules that were written for Arab Bedouins of 1400 years ago. You are right, it is not all because of Islam, but it has lended itself as an effective tool to suppressors, and this is not the first time.


Ramin jaan - Q is denying Quran!

by hooshie on

Q needs to say a provocative gibberish from time to time. ALL his so called objective scholars have attested to the bloody campaigns waged by the prophet of Islam against those who refused to convert. Quran is explicit:

9:123 "O you who believe, fight those of the unbelievers near you and let them see how harsh you can be. Know that Allah is with the righteous." (Fakhry’s translation)

Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, [even if they are] of the People of the Book, until they pay the jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (At-Tawbah 9:29)

And on the spoils of war:

Allah made booty lawful and good. He used it to incite the Muslims to unity of purpose. So enjoy what you have captured.



Lower Taxes, No Pressure --> Conversion Makes No Sense

by MM on

None of us were there ca. 1300 years ago, and we can argue to kingdom come regarding who, what, where and how come.  However, if the taxes were lower for non-Muslims and there was no pressure to convert, then some un-answerable questions remain: 

1. Why did the Parsi community fled to India?

2. What was the incentive to convert to Islam from the pre-dominantly Zoroastrian Sassanids?  Seeing the light of Islam vs. Zardoshti?  Naaaaa.

3. If Islam was so great, why did the old Persians saw a new light in the Shi’a sect? 

Sorry Q, looking back at the old Persians and the advantages/disadvantages that most Zoroastrian websites talk about, “the initial pressure” makes more sense.  Although, in my opinion, the old Persians revolted against the Caliphs by adhering to the Shi’a sect just to separate themselves from the old religion now known as Sunni Islam.  By the 16th century, the Safavids made Shi’a the official religion of Iran?  And, the Shi’a sect was finally recognized as a sect of Islam by a fatwa in July 6th, 1959 by Mahmood Shaltoot (a Sunni scholar/shaikh).

Enough said.

ramin parsa


by ramin parsa on

writes, "Finally, Gandhi was not a historian but a peace maker. Would any one who wants to bridge the Muslim-Hindu rifts say anything different." 

Well said.

It's an abject mockery of decency and good manners for a person (Q) who worships mullah Khomeini  (a man of slaughter and war) to summon the perverse audacity and gall as to even quote the great Gandhi (a man of peace), as does Qfarce.

This uber-porroo merchant of misinformation has no shame.



by jamshid on

I agree with you regarding Sassanid corruption and incompetence. But as you said, there were many movements which were mushrooming towards the end of Sassanids that were being crushed by Kings and backed by the Mo'beds.

Considering the Sassanids weakness, and with time and like in many other countries, these movements had a good chance to create reforms. But the Arab invasion not only crushed the Sassanids, but it also crushed any hope of change from within.

"How is it that a conventional army of that time, ... suddenly crumbled in the face of a badly organized desert guerilla army..."

Iran's army was worn out due to countless years of useless war with the Romans. The economy in those days was so bad that most soldiers were left unpaid. In-fighting among general were common.

"As such where do you think Salman Farsi's loyalities really lay?"

His loyalties layed with the Arab invaders. Period. He was a traitor in as much the same way that an Iranian would be a traitor today, if he joined Iraq or Turkey or the US attacking the "corrupt" IRI with the ultimate goals of subjugating the Iranian nation.

There is a reason why Salman is called "Salmane mal'oon".


Sorry Azali, you FAILED again.

by hooshie on

The message is very simple: PUT UP or SHUT UP.


BTW, is this the example of your gnostic, erfani, conduct you have adopted from you sufic "trainings"? Boy, you are what Hafez described as:

صوفی شهر بین که چون لقمه شبهه میخورد             پاردمش دراز باد آن حَیوان خوش علف


Now, go lick your wounds.


Don't laugh so hard Q - you may crack!

by hooshie on

But you really can't be sersious? Oh, I am sure in the English translation of the Quran there are thousands of occurances of love - but since your Arabis is even worse than your Farsi, I don't expect you to even get involved in this debate. Go hide behind your new Azali ally and suck up to him. You may find some succour there.

BTW, none of the so called objective scholars (!!) you have cited have denied the prohpets battles, ghazavat, against the so-called infidel. And the Quranic verses on the method to share the loots and spoils of war were not sent to the prophet for their Friday picnics.  

How about this for a laugh?

Finally, Gandhi was not a historian but a peace maker. Would any one who wants to bridge the Muslim-Hindu rifts say anything different.

Think about it and think hard. The final laugh is on you. Next time you want to involve yourself in the business of those more educated than you, first educate yourelf, then ask permission to enter.



by Nur-i-Azal on

Baba, r*#dy...Anyone with half a brain will see you have no leg to stand on, bro. The challenge remains standing only in the windmills of your mind! Let it go. You have completely lost that argument ten times over, man. Move on...



by Nur-i-Azal on

One of the uncomfortable issues that many contemporary Iranian nationalists don't like to address about the Arab invasion of Iran and their victory at Ghadisiya is the fact that the Sassanian state had become irredeemably corrupt, it was oppressive to all minorities and dissidents, and was on the whole a totalitarian theocratic caste-ridden monster worse than even the Islamic republic of today.

It isn't so much that the Arabs invaded Iran but more the case that the Sassanian state simply crumbled and the Arabs filled in the vacuum left by their implosion. If you know your history, Yazdigird III was actually betrayed by his own generals and most of the Sassanian army deserted the Sassanian cause when the going got  only slightly tough. How is it that a conventional army of that time, boasting hundreds of war elephants and ostensibly well trained mobilized troops, suddenly crumbled in the face of a badly organized desert guerilla army riding camels and bad horses  (with inferior quality weapons) who couldn't hold a single trench against such a force on a good day, let alone conquer the whole darn empire?!

This is a question people need to be asking themselves in order to be fair to history. I'll give part of the answer: the sort of brutal persecution that the Sassanian state subjected Nestorian and Monophysite Christians, Manichaeans and, above all, the Mazdakis, eventually caught up with the house of Sassan and tore it to pieces with a proverbial cotton-wool (pambeh)! As such where do you think Salman Farsi's loyalities really lay?


You are a bad loser Azal :))

by hooshie on


With such shallow sophistry that you employ, I am not surprised that these Bahai boys are makeing a meal of you for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Having failed , so pitifully, to search and find a single record of the word ashagha or its derivatives (open your eyes and read my original comment and its title and don't panic, calm down, I am not a Bahai) now you are seeking refuge under the the false pretension of innocence: "If you meant to say derivatives of the root (masdar) 'ashaqa, you should've stated so specifically".Look again Azali,  I did specify ashagha and, FYI, ashagha happens to be the masdar!!! By making such foolish excuseS, you not only exposed yourself even further, you have also demontrated that you don't know what derivative means. I don't know where you Azalis learned English, or for that matter Persian and Arabic, but synonyms are not derivatives, and all your shouting and accusatory remarks have further betrayed the superficiality of your understanding of the linguistic basics.  

Now, read and learn something: Love is a wide ranging English translation of many words in Arabic, including, but not limited to, ashagha, hobb, raghba, wodd, and so on. I did specifiy only one word: ashagha, or its common Persian adaptation, eshgh.

YOU FAILED, and did it so miserably to come up with a single example of ashagha (a little advice: change your Arabic search engine - it may help)  and now you are hiding behind your usual defeatist rants.

With such degree of  shallow debating skills that you possess, I am not suprised that the Bhai faith is such a growing, shining success and Azalis are such a dwindeling, miserable, wound licking bunch of failures. 

Finally, Hafez must have had you in mind when he wrote:

با مدعی مگویید اسرار عشق و مستی

تا بی​خبر بمیرد در درد خودپرستی

The Challenge Remains Standing.



by jamshid on

Hypothetically speaking, if you were thrown back in time with your current views, back to the time of Arab invasion of Iran, and you were faced with two choices, which one would you choose?

1. Join Salman Farsi and help the Arab invaders with a guarantee that history would remained unchanged.

2. Fight the Arab invaders with the guarantee that Iran will not become a muslim country.

Just curious.



by Nur-i-Azal on

If you are addressing me, you are way off and out of line, dude.

I am an esotercist and follow a radical path of 'irfan. I also lead the Fatimiya Sufi Order, worship the God-of-my-being in the form of the Divine Feminine, and I am simultaneously a Bayani Gnostic Universalist rather than strictly a Muslim.  I am also attempting in my own way to out Rushdie Salman Rushdie by publicly proclaiming Fatima Zahra' to be God(ess) and changing the formula of the shahada from "la ilaha illa allah muhammad rasul allah" to "la ilaha illa allah fatima wajh allah." If you have any idea of the history of Islam you would know that my type of person is considered a rank heretic deserving of immediate death (nay, the very embodiment of blasphemy itself) and as such people like me have the longest sustained history of persecution and brutality at the hands of mullahs and fundamentalists. But fair is fair, truth is truth, and facts are facts!

Also the mullahs, Islamists and fundamentalists are not now nor have ever been representative in any monolithic sense of the entirety of Islamicate civilization. There are also Sufis, Isma'ilis and other assorted Islamic creeds who despise these mullahs and fundamentalists (Sunni and Shi'a alike), together with their ways, as intensely, if not more so, than you do -- and for even longer.

ramin parsa

I'm afraid masoudA is RIGHT!

by ramin parsa on

This self-serving hall-monitor with the Khomeinist pedigree has, I'm afraid, employed the art of misdirection -- YET AGAIN -- and engaged us in another worthless, unproductive discussion, in order to take our focus off what really matters to us TODAY -- the destruction of the kleptocratic mullacracy in our homeland.

To hell with the forces of division and death. Let us ignore these parasitic, self-serving, unproductive discussions and let us instead focus our energies and our efforts in coming up with creative methods to shorten the life-span of our enemies destroying our homeland.

The IRI spends hundreds of millions of dollars on propaganda in the United States each year. We know some of that stolen money ends up in the pockets of those who engage us in defeatist debates. Let us not be fooled again. Let us ignore these an-tellectual hacks and whores, in the name of UNITY and FREEDOM for our tortured motherland. 

Long live Iran, free of Islamic fascism!


the subject is me?

by Q on

I was addressing the drivers. Your subject, context, priority and timing. You are in question Q.

wow! how out of character! (sacastic)

Since you have no real responses, you are completely dropping the content of the blog and wasting everybody's time by making this personal, aka literally attacking the messenger. So what happened to the "historical discussion?" I guess it was BS afterall, ey?

I have to say, I called it totally right on this one! Thanks for the speedy proof.

I'm sorry. I guess I thought you really had something factual. But I see I was mistaken. Feel free to continue NOT saying anything.

Good weekend to all.


The subject is you

by Hovakhshatare on

but you are avoiding it. The half baked history and oxymorons in your logic and story has been pointed out by several people. I was addressing the drivers. Your subject, context, priority and timing. You are in question Q.


no surprises....

by Q on

It is still B.S. and it stinks even through the bits.

If there's substance in this, I can't find it.

My point was and is very clear no matter how you try to twist the subject and babble on. I would engage a historical discussion not historical babble. My original comment stands.

You can bitch and moan all you want. This is usually the kind of "historical discussion" that I hear when someone has nothing substantive to say and is just BS'ing.

Your original comment "still stands" as a testiment of how far deluded people can go without making a single substantive point on the subject at hand.


No Q, slice and dice it from here to sunday

by Hovakhshatare on

It is still B.S. and it stinks even through the bits. My point was and is very clear no matter how you try to twist the subject and babble on. I would engage a historical discussion not historical babble. My original comment stands.


Thanks for the laughs Hovakh,

by Q on

To talk about love in islam and how it spread as Majids and Nedas are asking for freedom from this garbage, with their lives and livelihood, and in the midst of the very manifestation of islam on Iranian people and heritage, says a lot about who and what you are Q.

It says alot about you and your reading comprehension skills when you can't even be bothered to notice that hooshie was the one talking about "love" in Quoran and that I called it a nonsequitor.

It also proves my basic conception of you and people who repeat your brand of ignorance. Whithout the slightest pretense of historical or factual response to the points made, you feel self-righteously justified to attack those who don't share your illogical bigotry. That's the attitude of "I'm too good to bother with facts, I'll just call people names, make wild accusations, and pretend that is a logical response."

I might not sleep well at night. But that's OK. It is usually the self-appointed zealots and haters who blissfully unaware of their own bubble of ignorance that have always slept real well at night.

Suspension of reality makes for excellent sleeping pills.


آفتاب امد دلیل آفتاب


To talk about love in islam and how it spread as Majids and Nedas are asking for freedom from this garbage, with their lives and livelihood, and in the midst of the very manifestation of islam on Iranian people and heritage, says a lot about who and what you are Q.

Never mind the classic maghlate and safsate (hallmark of islam and its bastard child the IRR) you use and with the audacity to say it in a 'I know better and here is the real history' attitude.

How do you sleep at night?

Do you even have a soul? 




by Nur-i-Azal on

I still don't understand your single-minded obsession against Bahai's and Bahai conspiracies

Read this blog, and then you'll maybe understand. And it is the Haifan Baha'i organization that worries me, not individuals. QED


"Love" in the Quran! Is this what it's come down to?

by Q on

hooshie, I literally laughed out loud when I read your retort "not a single record of love".

Really? That's all you got? You're not even pretending to tackle the subject on factual basis, and have to show your islamophobia by making ridiculous nonsequitors?

Even you have to admit it sounds desperate. Reminds me of Fred (perhaps not a coincidence?) who calimed he never called me "old islamist photographer" because he used the word "aged islamist photographer".

Nur, I appreciate your correct reply to the nonsense by hooshie. I still don't understand your single-minded obsession against Bahai's and Bahai conspiracies, but you have made many fair and factual statements about Islam and religious tolerance and I thank you for it. I'm 100% with you on this one:

I have to say, some of the dumbest people I have met online in my 16 years of being on the internet have come from this very site!


Iraneh Azad, the well-known stalker returns

by Q on


You have gotten so ridiculous with these hit and run pathetic attempts at character assassination and slander for which you have created this fake account.

It's obvious you are obsessed with slandering me, and further you are obsessed with defending Israel and injecting it into every conversation.

As usual you have no substance, therfore nothing to take seriously. You haven't read this blog, nor do you know much about the subject.

Now can you please give names and citations of your "objective Scholars" who have "debunked" Islam by the sword? Educate us and tell us who were these "objective" scholars.

This is almost comically trivial. There might seriously be more concensus on this than on Global Warming! If you are serious about this (doubt it very much), I can oblige: How about De Lacy O'Leary? Shela McDonough? Karin Armstrong? Dina Le Gall? Even the Bush advisor and right-wing authority on Islam Bernard Lewis agrees on this point!

That's how deluded the believers of this myth are!

Is Mahatma Gandhi objective enough for you? This is what he said on the subject:

"I become more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers and his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle." -- Young India, 1924

Now that I have done your homework for you, why do I have a feeling you couldn't care less about facts and evidence?


yep, what difference does it make

by SamSamIIII on


Wether one fantasizes & call Bedoine genociders as willingly invited guests or present it factualy as it was, makes absolutly no difference since, the end result ,1400 yrs later are the Arabo Ommaties above & below me on this same thread proving the Arabs in denial syndrom that has afflicted  us, the pretenders to the Iranian heritage .   Problem is not Islam but the native Ajam bardeh foot soldiers . Keep Islam but bury Ommatism . Amen to that day !.


Path of Kiaan Resurrection of True Iran Hoisting Drafshe Kaviaan // //


Basic geography

by Q on


And Q, why don’t you answer Laleh?

Laleh didn't ask a question nor did she make a real argument. As I said, she missed the point entirely.

Laleh listed a set of battles, copied from here .

These are all in Middle East, North Africa, Iberia and one foray into cenrtal Asia. It is quite irrelevent to the main argument. I never disputed there were conquests. This blog is about forced religious conversion. I seriously doubt if Laleh even read the blog or saw the video by Dr. Bazargan.

The list includes non-Muslim nations, and minorities which actually proves one of the points I made in the blog entry!

Alltogether the number of Muslims covered by these conquests is about 250-300 Million people. There are at least 1.2 Billion Muslims in the world. Indonesia by itself has 200 million, the Indian subcontinent close to 500 million. China, may have as much as 100 million. Nigeria, the most populous country in Africa has about 80 million Muslims. Kazakhstan, Thailand, Malaysia, Phillipines, and all of sub-saharan Africa is not covered by these "conquests", I made this point repeatedly. That's why I told Laleh to read it again.

And, one final note, it was not only the Arab armies who spread the Islam by force.

First of all, the question of this blog is about Iranians being forcibly converted by Arab armies, agaist the will of the population. Now we have gotten to the point where in support this false notion, Laleh is saying Iran itself spread Islam by the sword!!!

This is a fantastically inaccurate theory which even if true does not refute my arguments. There is no proof of Iranian or Turkish armies having a policy of forced convertion of other nations. Ottoman empire, at its height controlled the entire southeastern Europe, including parts of Ukraine and Russia. Only relatively small populations in Bosnia and Albania are muslims. The conquests hardly correspond to the conversions. Greece and Armenia were repeatedly occupied by Arabs and Turks but they are not Muslim.

One however has to speak out when historical facts are distorted for political reasons or just to please the religious ego.

Yes. This is exactly why I wrote the blog. The fanatical Islamophobia escapegoatism is not just political, but with some people has risen to the status of religion.


Jizya tax was lower than Sassanid tax

by Q on


In general I agree with you, including your last paragraph. However, the following point made by your is misleading and frequently abused:

Non-Muslims had to pay an extra tax called Jazieh‎ to remain non-Muslims which may have scraped the bottom-line of many defeated Persians.

The first part is true. There was the Jizya tax on non-muslims. But taxes were a fact of life in the region. Every local chief or tribe had to pay taxes for allegiance to the ruling Empire. The previous taxes under later Sassanids were almost universally higher than the Jizya throughout the empire. Most Iranians, even if they had to pay the Jizya, in effect received a tax break.


Apparently you don't know proper English usage or

by Nur-i-Azal on

How to pose challenges. You are hanging on to a sinking ship, mate.

You said:

"I challenge anyone who can show as single record of this word or its derivatives in Quran."


Those derivatives have been shown to you in the synonyms wudd, hubb and raghaba. If you meant to say derivatives of the root (masdar) 'ashaqa, you should've stated so specifically. But you didn't. Your own vagary did you in on the challenge which has been met and then some, and now you're presenting argumentative fallacies, such as a straw man,  trying to dishonestly run away from the fact that you have been proven completely and embarrassingly wrong.

Your challenge has sunk to the bottom head first, mate! Have the honor and humility to recognize it, for your own sake.

I have to say, some of the dumbest people I have met online in my 16 years of being on the internet have come from this very site! What is going on people? What is in that water supply of North America that is making some of the smartest and most switched on people in the world (us Iranians) into the dumbest over on that land. Now there's food for thought right there...



Challenge stands tall

by hooshie on

Read my words: ashagha (persianzed to eshgh). ALL  your copied and pasted examples fail to meet the challenge.


A little knowledge is a dangerous thing - Alexander Pope


Challenge met, and then some...

by Nur-i-Azal on

hooshie: "I challenge anyone who can show as single record of this word or its derivatives in Quran."

Three synonyms meaning "love" (wudd, hubb and raghaba) in Arabic have been shown to exist in the Qur'an. The argument behind your challenge was pretty disengenuous to begin with. I have met the challenge beyond your one instance. What are you going to give me for it?

Actual knowledge goes a long, long way...



And yet more...

by Nur-i-Azal on

3:57 "As to those who believe and work righteousness, Allah will pay
them (in full) their reward; but Allah loveth [hubb] not those who do wrong." [ad-dalemeen]

3:140 If a wound hath touched you, be sure a similar wound hath
touched the others. Such days (of varying fortunes) we give to men
and men by turns: That Allah may know those that believe and that He
may take to Himself from your ranks martyr-witnesses (to Truth). And
Allah loveth [hubb] not those that
do wrong. [ad-dalemeen]

42:40 The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in
degree): But if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his
reward is due from Allah: For [Allah] loveth
[hubb] not those who do wrong.


6:141 It is He who produceth gardens, with trellises and without,
and dates, and tilth with produce of all kinds, and olives and
pomegranates, similar (in kind) and different (in variety): Eat of
their fruit in their season, but render the dues that are proper
on the day that the harvest is gathered. But waste not by excess:
For Allah loveth [hubb] not the
wasters [al-musarifeen]

7:31 O Children of Adam! Wear your beautiful apparel at every time
and place of prayer: Eat and drink: But waste not by excess, for
Allah loveth [hubb] not the wasters. [al-musarifeen]

31:18 "And swell not thy cheek (for pride) at men, nor walk in insolence
through the earth; for Allah loveth [hubb]
not any arrogant boaster. [kul mkhtal fkhur]

57:23 In order that ye may not despair over matters that pass you by,
nor exult over favors bestowed upon you. For Allah loveth [hubb] not any vainglorious boaster, -- [kul mkhtal fkhur]

4:36 Serve Allah, and join not any partners with Him; and do good
-- to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbors who are
near, neighbors who are strangers, the Companion by your side, the
wayfarer (ye meet), and what your right hands possess: For Allah
loveth [hubb] not the arrogant, the
vainglorious; -- [mkhtalan fkhur]

16:23 Undoubtedly Allah doth know what they conceal, and what they
reveal: Verily He loveth [hubb] not
the arrogant. [al-mustakibereen]

28:76 Qarun was doubtless, of the people of Moses; but he acted
insolently towards them: Such were the treasures We had bestowed
on him, that their very keys would have been a burden to a body
of strong men. Behold, his people said to him: "Exult not, for
Allah loveth [hubb] not those who
exult (in riches). [al-fraheen]


8:58 If thou fearest treachery from any group, throw back (their
Covenant) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms: For Allah
loveth [hubb] not the treacherous.


 4:107 Contend not on behalf of such as betray their own souls;
for Allah loveth [hubb] not one
given to perfidy and crime;

4:148 Allah loveth [hubb] not that
evil should be noised abroad in public speech, except where
injustice hath been done; for Allah is He who heareth and knoweth
all things.


 2:195 And spend of your substance in the cause of Allah, and make
not your own hands contribute to (your) destruction; but do good;
for Allah loveth [hubb] those who
do good. [al-muhasneen]

3:134 Those who spend (freely), whether in prosperity, or in adversity;
who restrain anger, and pardon (all) men; -- for Allah loves [hubb] those who do good; -- [al-muhasaneen]

3:148 And Allah gave them a reward in this world, and the excellent
reward of the Hereafter. For Allah loveth [hubb]
those who do good. [al-muhasaneen]

5:14 But because of their breach of their Covenant, We cursed them,
and made their hearts grow hard: They change the words from their
(right) places and forget a good part of the Message that was sent
them, nor wilt thou cease to find them -- barring a few -- ever bent
on [new] deceits: But forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds):
For Allah loveth [hubb] those who
are kind. [al-muhasaneen]

5:96 On those who believe and do deeds of righteousness there is
no blame for what they ate (in the past), when they guard themselves
from evil, and believe, and do deeds of righteousness, -- (or) again,
guard themselves from evil and believe, -- (or) again, guard themselves
from evil and do good. For Allah loveth [hubb]
those who do good. [al-muhasaneen]


2:222 They ask thee concerning women's courses. Say: They are a hurt
and a pollution: So keep away from women in their courses, and do not
approach them until they are clean. But when they have purified
themselves, ye may approach them in any manner, time, or place ordained
for you by Allah. For Allah loves those who turn to Him
constantly and He loves [hubb]
those who keep themselves pure and clean. [al-mutdhreen]

9:108 Never stand thou forth therein. There is a mosque whose foundation
was laid from the first day on piety; it is more worthy of thy standing
forth [for prayer] therein. In it are men who love to be
purified; and Allah loveth [hubb] those
who make themselves pure. [al-mutadhreen]

3:76 Nay. -- Those that keep their plighted faith and act aright,
-- verily Allah loves [hubb]
those who act aright. [al-mutaqeen]

9:4 (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with
whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently
failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfill
your engagements with them to the end of their term: For Allah
loveth [hubb] the righteous. [al-mutaqeen]

9:7 How can there be a league, before Allah and His Apostle,
with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near
the Sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye
true to them: For Allah doth love [hubb]
the righteous. [al-mutaqeen]

19:96 On those who believe and work deeds of righteousness,
will (Allah) Most Gracious bestow love.
[arrahman wdan] [Interpretive insert, the thought is
that God will bestow benevolence]

5:45 (They are fond of) listening to falsehood, of devouring anything
forbidden. If they do come to thee, either judge between them, or
decline to interfere. If thou decline, they cannot hurt thee in the
least. If thou judge, judge in equity between them. For Allah loveth [hubb] those who judge in equity. [al-muqasiteen]

49:9 If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make
ye peace between them: But if one of them transgresses beyond bounds
against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses
until it complies with the command of Allah; but if it complies, then
make peace between them with justice, and be fair: For Allah loves [hubb] those who are fair
(and just). [al-muqasiteen]

60:8 Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not
for [your] Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly
and justly with them: For Allah loveth [hubb]
those who are just [al-muqasiteen]

3:159 It is part of the Mercy of Allah that thou dost deal gently
with them. Wert thou severe or harsh hearted, they would have broken
away from about thee: So pass over (their faults), and ask for
(Allah's) forgiveness for them; and consult them in affairs (of moment).
Then, when thou hast taken a decision, put thy trust in Allah. For
Allah loves [hubb] those who
put their trust (in Him). [al-mutawakileen]


 3:146 How many of the Prophets fought (in Allah's way), and with them
[fought] large bands of godly men? But they never lost heart if they
met with disaster in Allah's way, nor did they weaken [in will] nor
give in. And Allah loves [hubb]
those who are firm and steadfast. [as-sabreen]

3:31 Say: "If ye do love [hubb]
Allah, follow me: Allah will love [ihbbikum]
you and forgive you your sins: For Allah is Oft-Forgiving,
Most Merciful."5:57 O ye who believe! If any from among you turn back from his Faith,
soon will Allah produce a people whom He will love [hubb] as they will love [hubb] Him, -- Lowly with the Believers,
Mighty against the Rejecters, Fighting in the Way of Allah, and
never afraid of the reproaches of such as find fault. That is the
Grace of Allah, which He will bestow on whom He pleaseth. And Allah
encompasseth all, and He knoweth all things.

20:39 "Throw (the child) into the chest, and throw (the chest) into
the river: The river will cast him up on the bank, and he will be
taken up by one who is an enemy to Me and an enemy to him':
But I cast (the garment of) love over thee
[muhiba minahu] from Me: And (this) in order
that thou mayest be reared under Mine eye. (This passage relates
the placing of Moses in the bulrushes and his subsequent adoption
by Pharaoh's daughter and God's care of him.)

61:4 Truly Allah loves [hubb]
those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they
were a solid cemented structure.