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

More verses of love (wudd/hubb/raghaba) in the Qur'an

by Nur-i-Azal on

3:103 And hold fast, all together, by the Rope which Allah (stretches
out for you), and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with
gratitude Allah's favor on you; for ye were enemies and He joined
your hearts in love, so that by His Grace, ye became
brethren; and ye were on the brink of the Pit of Fire, and He saved
you from it. Thus doth Allah make His Signs clear to you: That ye may
be guided. [Interpretive insert]

7:189 It is He Who created you from a single person, and made his
mate of like nature, in order that he might dwell with her (in
love). When they are united, she bears a light burden
and carries it about (unnoticed). When she grows heavy, they both pray
to Allah their Lord, (saying): "If Thou givest us a goodly child.
We vow we shall (ever) be grateful."


2:165 Yet there are men who take (for worship) others besides Allah,
as equal (with Allah): They love [hubb]
them as they should love [Hubb] Allah
but those of Faith are overflowing in their love
[hubb n.] for Allah. If only the unrighteous
could see, behold, they would see the Penalty: that to Allah belongs
all power, and Allah will strongly enforce the Penalty.

2:177 It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces towards the East
or West; but it is righteousness -- to believe in Allah and the Last Day,
and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your
substance, out of love for Him, ['ala hubbahu] for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the
wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be
steadfast in prayer, and to practice regular charity; to fulfill the
contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain
(or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic.
Such are the people of truth, the Allah-fearing.

38:32 And he said, "Truly do I love [hubb]
the love [hubb n.] of Good,
with a view to the glory of my Lord," -- Until (the sun) was hidden
in the veil (of Night):

76:8 And they feed, for the love of Allah,
['ala hubbahu] the indigent, the orphan, and the captive, -

76:9 (Saying), "We feed you for the sake of Allah alone: No reward do
we desire from you, nor thanks.

21:90 So We listened to him: And We granted him Yahya: We cured his
wife's (barrenness) for him. These [three] were ever quick in emulation
in good works: They used to call on Us with love
[raghban] and reverence, and humble themselves
before Us.

31:15 "But if they strive to make thee join in worship with Me things
of which thou hast no knowledge, obey them not; yet bear them company
in this life with justice (and consideration), and follow the way of
those who turn to Me (in love): In the End the
return of you all is to Me, and I will tell you the truth (and meaning)
of all that ye did."

56:37 Beloved [`uruban] (by nature), equal
in age, -- (companions of the right hand in paradise) 

4:69 All who obey Allah and the Apostle are in the company of those
on whom is the Grace of Allah, -- Of the Prophets (who teach), the
Sincere (lovers of Truth), [sadiqiyeen]
the Witnesses (who testify), and the Righteous (who do good): Ah! What
a beautiful Fellowship! [Interpretive insert]

57:19 And those who believe in Allah and His apostles -- they are
the Sincere (lovers of Truth), [sadiqiyeen]
and the Witnesses (who testify), in the eyes of their Lord: They shall
have their Reward and their Light. But those who reject Allah and deny
Our Signs, -- they are the Companions of Hellfire.

2:190 Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not
transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors
[la uhibb al-mua'tadeen]

5:90 O ye who Believe! Make not unlawful the good things which Allah
hath made lawful for you, but commit no excess: For Allah loveth
not those given to excess [la uhibb al-mua'tadeen]

7:55 Call on your Lord with humility and in private: For Allah
loveth not those who trespass beyond bounds.
[la uhibb al-mua'tadeen]


2:205 When he turns his back, his aim everywhere is to spread mischief
through the earth and destroy crops and cattle. But Allah loveth [hubb] not mischief. [alfsad]

5:67 The Jews say: "Allah's hand is tied up." Be their hands tied up
and be they accursed for the (blasphemy) they utter. Nay, both His
hands are widely outstretched: He giveth and spendeth (of His bounty)
as He pleaseth. But the revelation that cometh to thee from Allah
increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy.
Amongst them We have placed enmity and hatred till the Day of Judgement.
Every time they kindle the fire of war, Allah doth extinguish it; but
they (ever) strive to do mischief on earth. And Allah loveth [hubb] not those who do mischief [al-mufasideen]

28:77 "But seek, with the (wealth) which Allah has bestowed on thee,
the Home of the Hereafter, nor forget thy portion in this world: But
do thou good, as Allah has been good to thee, and seek not (occasions
for) mischief in the land: For Allah loves [hubb] not those who do mischief." [al-mufasideen]


2:276 Allah will deprive usury of all blessing, but will give increase
for deeds of charity: For He loveth [hubb]
not creatures ungrateful and wicked. [kul kffar]

3:32 Say: "Obey Allah and His Apostle": But if they turn back,
Allah loveth [hubb] not those who
reject Faith. [al kafireen]

30:45 That He may reward those who believe and work righteous deeds,
out of His Bounty. For He loves [hubb]
not those who reject Faith. [al-kafireen]


Love in the Quran.*Wudd & Hubb* Satisfied?

by Nur-i-Azal on

Surah Maryam, verse 96

Indeed, those who have believed and done righteous deeds,  the Merciful will appoint for them love/affection (wudd'an)

Surah Hud, verse 90

And ask forgiveness of thy Lord and turn unto It in repentance. Verily, my Lord is Most Merciful, Most Loving (wadud).

 Surah Al-Burooj, verse 14

And It is the Forgiving, the Affecionate (al-ghafur al-wadud).

14:3 Those who love [istahib]
the life of this world more than the Hereafter, who hinder (men)
from the Path of Allah and seek therein something crooked: They are
astray by a long distance.

16:107 This because they love [istahib]
the life of this world better than the Hereafter: And Allah will
not guide those who reject Faith.

75:20 Nay, (ye men!) But ye love [hubb] the fleeting life,

76:27 As to these, they love [hubb]
the fleeting life, and put away behind them a Day (that will be) hard.

89:20 And ye love [hubb] wealth
with inordinate love!

100:8 And violent is he in his love [hubb n.] of wealth.

 3:14 Fair in the eyes of men is the love [hubb]
of things they covet: Women and sons; heaped-up hoards of gold
and silver; horses branded (for blood and excellence); and (wealth of)
cattle and well-tilled land. Such are the possessions of this world's
life; but in nearness to Allah is the best of the goals (to return to).


 3:92 By no means shall ye attain righteousness unless ye give (freely)
of that which ye love; [hubb] and whatever
ye give, of a truth Allah knoweth it well.

 2:216 Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is
possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye
love [hubb] a thing which is
bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.

3:188 Think not that those who exult in what they have brought about,
and love [hubb] to be praised
for what they have not done, -- think not that they can escape the
Penalty. For them is a Penalty grievous indeed.

6:76 When the night covered him over, he saw a star: He said: "This
is my Lord." But when it set, He said: "I love [hubb] not those that set."

7:79 So Salih left them, saying: "O my people! I did indeed convey to
you the message for which I was sent by my Lord: I gave you good counsel,
but ye love [hubb] not good counsellors!"

9:23 O ye who believe! Take not for protectors your fathers and your
brothers if they love [istahib]
infidelity above Faith: If any of you do so, they do wrong.

Those who love [hubb]
(to see) scandal published broadcast among the Believers,
will have a grievous Penalty in this life and in the Hereafter:
Allah knows, and ye know not.

61:13 And another (favor will He bestow), which ye do love [hubb], -- help from Allah and a speedy victory.
So give the Glad Tidings to the Believers.

3:119 Ah! Ye are those who love [hubb] them,
but they love [hubb] you not, -- though ye
believe in the whole of the Book. When they meet you they say, "We believe":
But when they are alone, they bite off the very tips of their fingers
at you in their rage. Say: "Perish in your rage; Allah knoweth well all
the secrets of the heart."

12:8 They said: "Truly Joseph and his brother are loved
[ahubb] more by our father than we: But we are a goodly
body! Really our father is obviously wandering (in his mind)!

12:30 Ladies said in the City: "The wife of the (great) Aziz is seeking
to seduce her slave from his (true) self: Truly hath he inspired her
with violent love [Hubb n.]: We see
she is evidently going astray [shghfaha hubban anan].

28:56 It is true thou wilt not be able to guide every one whom thou
lovest; [hubb] but Allah guides those
whom He will. And He knows best those who receive guidance.

5:85 Strongest among men in enmity to the Believers wilt thou find the
Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love [mawadda] to the Believers wilt thou find those who
say, "We are Christians": Because amongst these are men devoted
to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not

29:25 And he said: "For you, ye have taken (for worship) idols besides
Allah, out of mutual love [mawadda]
and regard between yourselves in this life; but on the Day of
Judgment ye shall disown each other and curse each other: And your
abode will be the Fire, and ye shall have none to help."

30:21 And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from
among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquillity with them, and
He has put love [mawadda] and mercy
between your [hearts]: Verily in that are Signs for those who reflect.

42:23 That is (the Bounty) whereof Allah gives Glad Tidings to His
Servants who believe and do righteous deeds. Say: "No reward do I ask
of you for this except the love [mawadda]
of those near of kin. " And if any one earns any good, We shall
give him an increase of good in respect thereof: For Allah is Oft-Forgiving,
Most Ready to appreciate (service).

60:7 It may be that Allah will grant love (and friendship) [mawadda] between you and those whom ye (now) hold
as enemies. For Allah has power (over all things); and Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.


14:37 "O our Lord! I have made some of my offspring to dwell in a valley
without cultivation, by Thy Sacred House; in order, O our Lord, that
they may establish regular Prayer: So fill the hearts of some among
men with love towards them, and feed them with Fruits:
So that they may give thanks.







Quran: not a single record of the word "love" - eshgh

by hooshie on

Eshgh (or ashagha in its orginal pronounciation) is an Arabic word. I challenge anyone who can show as single record of this word or its derivatives in Quran.  


Islam was born out of (and into) politics. It was not and can never be apolitical otherwise it would cease to have meaning.


It's not about Islam. It's

by benross on

It's not about Islam. It's about political Islam. IRI foundation is based on this understanding that Islam can not be apolitical. I happen to agree this once with IRI. But there are those who may think differently. As long as political Islam is eradicated, giving room for a secular social life, I really don't care who believes in what religion.

Incidentally, those who brought up the issue of 'voluntary Islamization' of Iran, likes of Shariati, were on the forefront of today political Islam. At the time of Shariati, this propaganda was quite appealing because it was counter balancing the astonishingly stupid propaganda of the regime on 'Persian' identity.

'Islam with love' didn't mean to be an academic discourse. It meant to be political. And it was.

Iraneh Azad

Hypocricy Q - You are at it again

by Iraneh Azad on

Fake reformist Q States:

"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."

Amazing how this anonymous Q character can use the words "benevolent" "Occupations" and "Arab" all in one sentence and make it a positive that Iranians were occupied. I wonder if he can do the same regarding the Zionist occupation of stolen Palestinian land and make it a positive as well. What a hypocrite!

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.

Are these scholars as "objective" as you?


This is How you keep

by masoudA on

Iranians consumed with meaningless arguments.

Good Job Q and other Hezis - I must give credit where it is due.   What is the next topic?  Mossadegh?  Reza Shah? 

Divide and conquer 


Quirky Quotes

by hooshie on


"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."

What an accurate observation!!! So, lets see, by your estimates, the Mongol occupation of Iran in which hundreds of thousands of Iranians were killed and cities such as Marv, Nishapur, Samarkand and Bokhara were pillaged, was just as bloody as the Arab conquest of Persia. Of course, the Mongol, had the civility to respect Persians' religions and did not force anything on them.

Also, would you please give us the names of these "most objective scholars."


Silly Me - this is it!

by Cost-of-Progress on

Where's this clip been all my life? 

I am convinced that it was not the sword and that "convinced" my motherland to accept the blood thirsty cult of Islam. I shall pray 5 times a day to this benevolent allah from now on................Otherwise he might direct his wrath at me.....





Pragmatic Abarmard

by divaneh on

No Faramarz, Abarmard is pragmatic and he is right. If the religious bunch could ever get it in their head that the others have as much right to have a different opinion to them, then we could all have a golden start. Unfortunately religion by its nature prevents that. I sincerely hope that more and more people think like Abarmard.

Abarmard, you are right and no one blames the Arab armies for attacking and doing what they did. As you said, it was norm of the time. Persians and Romans are good examples of spread of the faith by force. Armenia was a cause of many wars between Persian and Romans. Everytime that the Persians invaded the Armenia; they destroyed all the churches and killed the priests, replacing those with Zoroastrian temples and clergies. Romans did the exact opposite every time that they invaded the Armenia. The point is that we do not deny these and do not feel obliged to defend the actions of Sassanid armies. One however has to speak out when historical facts are distorted for political reasons or just to please the religious ego.


Faith vs. Religion

by میرزاقشمشم on

One should not confuse the moral realm of faith with rigidity of institutionalized religion. faith is always inclusive; religion is divisive.


Abarmard, you have sunk way too low

by Faramarz_Fateh on

You are now quoting from that piece of feces called Khomeini now?!!

What a shame. 


Islam and Justice can co-exist

by Abarmard on

Not too extreme either way will give anyone a true picture. However one must keep in mind the time period of any events and the social norms of the times before jumping to conclusions.

Generally you can't take faith away from people and the best approach is to try to focus on the positives from the existing religion/philosophy. We can for example, from the words of Khomaini, get the parts that we agree on as the focal issue and push them to establish our rights. This will reform the society that will be beneficial for our future rather than a quick fix, which normally comes back to bite us in the rear.

That's the best and least costly method that will bear fruit, while fighting and being bitter will do just the opposite.


Yes, please pay Khoms and Zakat

by divaneh on

You are full of good intentions AO but you seem to forget who is the recipient of the Khoms and Zakat. It's Akhond. You pay one fifth of your hard earned earnings as Khoms to lazy, do nothing Akhonds. If you think even a fraction of that reaches the poor of the society, then you may as well believe in mermaids. Also Khoms should not be paid for earning and originates from sharing the booties and the share of the Prophet which was 1/5. Muslims were however required to pay Zakat.

And Q, why don’t you answer Laleh? I read your earlier comments and her answer is not there. You claimed that "To begin with majority of Muslims in the world live lands that no Arab army ever set foot in." and she has challenged that with a list of Arab conquests. Does it mean they did?

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


Sword Waving Islamists VERSUS Peaceful Muslims?

by MM on

We will not know for sure what happened centuries ago, but we need to consider some facts that may have fueled the controversy: 

* Omar’s army first invaded Iraq, a Sassanian province, in 633 AD which initiated many battles ending in the defeat of the Persian Empire in 644 AD.

* Many Zoroastrians immigrated to India to escape religious persecution and established the Parsi community, very analogous to, e.g., the Iranian-American community or others in Europe. 

* 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. 

I am reading this blog's arguments in the form of the difference between sword-waving jihadist Islamists vs. peaceful, loving and tolerant Muslims.  We have seen it over and over again that every time political power is bestowed to Islam, the "Islamist" face tends to overwhelm the "Muslim" camp.  But again, the fact is that we have seen the atrocities that Theocracies in general are capable of, whether they are based on Islam (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Taleban and Sudan) or Christianity in the Middle-ages.   

Nonetheless, I agree with Ramintork.  Let’s not argue about who did what 13 centuries ago.  The Iranian opposition needs to establish a set of core-values to forge a common front against this ruthless Islamist regime.  


غزوات دیجیتال


خدا خیلی‌ بی‌ معرفتی کرد که اسلامو قبل از اینترنت آورد. مجسم کنین
چه با حال بود اگه مثلا مسیو عمر واسه مستر  یزدگرد ایمیل میفرستاد یا چه
میدونم تویترش میکرد. دیگه اون موقع نه عربه بهانه داشت که اون همه پستچی
بفرسته توی سرزمین عجم که بعداً در تاریخ به اشتباه ازشون به اسم یه مشت
وحشی بادیه نشین که در پی‌ غارت و تجاوز به سرزمین آباد فارس خونها
ریختند، یاد بشه؛ و نه الان دوستان بورسیه ای‌ ساکن این سایت مجبور بودن
اوقات روحانی سینه زنی‌ و نوحه خونی ماه محرمشونو صرف ارشاد کفار دیجیتال


Anonymous Observer's defense of Islam

by Q on

AO, I agree with you entirely. Obviously, many Iranians are generous people. I don't know if you have ever seen the long lines of people for free food during religious holidays, or sheep sacrifices given to the poor during funerals, weddings and special occasions. Some of these things might be passe in North Tehran now, but in much of the country khoms and charity is honored.

But I completely agree with you that it is a shame more people do not follow these tenets and that these positive aspects of Islam need to be promoted more.


Laleh Gillani,

by Q on

I think you have missed the point of the essay entirely. Also read the response to Ramin that I gave below.

Kaveh V

The all peaceful and benevolent Islam:

by Kaveh V on





Noon o Ab

by MRX1 on

Vaseh amsal shomaha islam khob noon o abi shodeh. enjoy it.


A Myth? Oh, Really?

by LalehGillani on

Byzantine-Arab Wars began in 633 CE after the death of the Prophet Muhammad. The first four Caliphs of Islam together with the subsequent Umayyad Caliphates instigated and fought wars for over 194 years until 827 CE.

Thereafter, Muslims continued to attack the infidels and by the friendly, peace loving, sharp tip of Muslim swords converted the masses to Islam for centuries. The rise of three Muslim empires (Ottoman, Safavid and the Mughal Empire of India) introduced the taste of Islam’s sword to more nations:

The Conquest of Persia – 633-651 CE
The Conquest of Transoxiana – 662-709 CE
The Conquest of Sindh – 664-712 CE
The Conquest of Syria – 637 CE
The Conquest of Armenia – 639 CE
The Conquest of Egypt – 639 CE
First Wave of Attacks on North Africa – 647 CE
Second Wave of Attacks on North Africa – 665 CE
Third Wave of Attacks on North Aftrica – 689 CE
The Conquest of North Africa – 709 CE
The Conquest of Hispania – 711-718 CE
The Conquest of Septimania (Khazar-Arab Wars) – 719-720 CE
The Conquest of Caucasus – 711-750 CE
The Second Arab Siege of Constantinople 717-718 CE
The Conquest of Tbilisi – 736 CE
First Islamic Attacks on Sicily – 652-827
The Conquest of Southern Italy – 827 CE
The Conquest of Nubia – 700-1606 CE
The Conquest of Anatolia – 1060-1360 CE
Byzantine-Ottoman Wars – 1299-1453 CE

Anonymous Observer

Now, a word in defense of Islam

by Anonymous Observer on

I was watching the video that was posted on this site a few days ago about poverty and drug addiction in Iran, and I was thinking to myself that if Iranians would only follow one of the most important tenets of Islam, which is "khoms and zokat" and gave a 5th of their earning to the poor.  It will eliminate poverty in Iran.  But unfortunately, we as Iranian Muslims are more concerned about other aspects of the religion than the one that makes a real difference in the society.  In reality, Islam has one of the most, if not the most, progressive charitable donation requirements of any religion.  It's a shame that most Muslims don't follow those rules.  



Arab diet

by aaa on

Arabian salty desert was as green as New Zealand. Arabs were farming wheat, barley, rice, and having cattle of beef and lamb. They ate lamb kebabs and Basmati rice, fresh fruits and vegetable grown on a salty desert. However, they ate lizard for as snack  and drank oil for medical reason.


Excellent article

by Faramarz_Fateh on

This fantastically written blog is full of facts supported by credible references and confirmation by Western and Eastern historians alike.

I want to add these further points with the permission of our esteemed Mr. Q: 

1) The sword was not even invented at the time of Muhammad.

2) The swords that actually killed non Muslims in 21 countries a few years after death of the prophet (SAV) were designed and developed ZioNazis. These swords had computer systems which enabled them to seek and hunt non Muslims and cut their throats without help of a human.  Unfortunately, these same swords would then fly and insert themselves in the hands of innocent Muslim warriors (sorry Muslim love brigade) to implicate them.

3) Islam has always been the beacon of love, tolerance, equality and progressive thinking.  Just look at the Islamic countries of planet earth.  

I commend our dear Mr. Q for this well researched, well written and truthful blog.

I would like to suggest to JJ to keep this blog at the top of the featured blog section until at least end of this year so to maximize readers for the purpose of education. 



Islam and sword are just the "logo". Like I'm Puuurrrrsssian!

by Anonymouse on

It's like Persian and Iranian.  If you're confused, you say you are Persian or Persian-American.  If you're a fool you think people think Persian is another country! It's just easier for yourself.

I've come to believe that people who are screaming the most about Islam are the ones who've been shunned by society for other reasons and they want to blame it on Islam and try to drag everyone else down with themselves.

Everything is sacred.


I wished instead of this constant fight over Islam...

by ramintork on

I wished instead of this constant fight over Islam we did something for our country and we did it today. All you digital tigers sitting behind keyboards and fighting need to go out there and do something.

IC has become a battleground for Islam and anti Islam Iranians, whilst the country is being wasted away. We need to get public support outside our community and we need to do it fast. Islamist or non Islamist we could soon end up in a war and we need to change public perception about Iranians so that it would make it more difficult to villify us in the media and have us bombed.

Here are some constructive things you could do in your community, I am building up a facebook group to do all these, but so far all my calls to you digital tigers have ended up with no support!

mini marathon for freedom of Iran

sponspored walk for Neda

flashmob events

prevent a war in Iran student group



ramin parsa

You have some gall, Pal

by ramin parsa on

The fact that you would "flag"me is, in-and-of-itself, a symptom of your Islamic disease, which does not tolerate a diversity of opinions, nor freedom of speech.

Go ahead and flag me again, I know you can't help it. The fact that you would censor my voice is a rich sign of your pedigree, pal. I've never flagged anyone, not even your nonsense jibber-jabber! Someone like you, who lives in America should have more respect for freedom of speech and plurality of opinions. But you lack tolerance, again, because of your pedigree, and you know exactly what I mean by "pedigree," pal.

It's sad that you live in a free country and abuse its rights, but have no hesitation to wield the club of censorship, ala IRI, and silence my voice, even as I sit thousands of miles away from Tehran. We all know what you are, pal. And it's tragically sad, indeed.



Explanation for Ramin

by Q on

Iranian identity is a rich tapestry with many influences, Islam is one of them.

It absolutely is a western orientalist narrative that you are perpetuating. It was very useful for British and French to stoke the egos of Ghajar and Pahlavi Shahs with this hostile version of history to keep them from allying with the surriounding Arabs. It continued with Americans who did not want unity with pro-Soviet Arabs.

For hundreds of years before that, no one was particularly outraged or concerned about these issues that are giving you a heart attack now. Population of Iran actually got more religious, more Islamic in the middle ages.

And if any significant part of the population felt as you do, they certainly had a chance to reject Islam centuries ago. They didn't of course, because this fantasy only exists in your head.

Many countries, almost every country has experienced major shifts in their culture, for many reasons including as a result of violent invasions. This is part of history. Entire Europe was latinized by the Roman Empire. The original inhabitants of Britain, have completely lost their identity, language and culture and every other aspect of life has had influence from foreign invadors including Romans, Danes and French. Much more so than Iranians.

Do English people sit around crying like you and blaming modern Italians for what happened 2000 years ago? Do they call these foreign influences "disease of the mind" like you do? Of course not, it's absurd. They have a rational healthy relationship with history. You, apparently are incapable of it.

Some people do things like that of course. Those are usually the neo-Nazis who are looking for excuses to perpetuate hate and xenophobia.

That's just one example. I can name dozens of countries with similar cultural changes. Armenians and Greeks for example had a proud pre-Christian heritage. Egyptians, Turks, Vietnamese, Bulgarians, not to mention various nations in the new world have all gone through the same thing.

Only fanatics politicize ancient history as a rallying point for hatred and self-righteous bigotry.

You are the one spreading laughable misinformation. What I state are facts. Yours are biased opinions.

The Sassanid empire was already in free fall decline for over 50 years before Islam. About half the territory was already lost before Arab invasion. No serious historian would believe that Zoroastrianim would have survived in Iran. It was already in decline.

Had it not been Islam, Iran would be most likely a Christian country right now. The most common writing system under Sassanids (for the tiny educated population) was actually Aramaic which is an ancestor to Arabic and Farsi alphabets.

Don't slander me as hezbollahi, unless you want to get flagged again.

ramin parsa


by ramin parsa on

Nice of you two (Q and Appleton) to endorse each other's jibber-jabber blogs (see Appleton's blog)!

The massively poroo Hezbollahi (Q) writes, "The problem here is that 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."

Instilled in them by the west? Are you out of your ridiculously dimwitted and biased mind? As if we lack homegrown Islamic terrorits throughout the last 1,000 years, one of the biggest being mullah Khomeini and his gang of rapists and murderers, who practiced Islam as Islam was intended by its pedophile terrorits Prophet, who engaged in 78 battles, 77 of them being OFFENSIVE!

Oh, yeah, we were brainwashed by the west to hate the Arabs/Islam! We haven't experienced enough first-rate brutality first-hand.

The deceptive merchant of misinformation further writes, "We can't accept their 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. Alexaner, Ganges Khan, Taimur Lang, Turks, Afghans, Brits and Russians have all defeated and occupied Iran at some point. However these incidents don't seem to matter."

Do you know why the Russian invasion, the Macedonian invasion, even the Mongol invasion were nowhere near as destructive to Iranian identity, language and culture as the Arab invasion? Because none of those other invasions left behind a SADISTIC WAR MANUAL, i.e., the Quran, in order to brainwash the next 500 generations of Iranians!

All the others came, looted, raped and either left or melted into the population -- the ARABS, on the other hand, were the only ones to infect the Iranian nation with a 1,400-year disease of the mind, the worst cancer the universe has ever known, the parasite of Islam!

We're still suffering from this disease to this very day, while the damage done by the Macedonians and the Mongols has pretty much faded away. The Arab invasion gave us an Islamic virus born in the superstitious and backward deserts of Arabia, a bedouin cult that is one of the most hateful and violent books ever penned by humans! And I know the other two Abrahamic religions are pretty horrible as well, but Islam is the only one that has destroyed my homeland.

If not for the Arabian Trojan Horse, the Quran, Iran would not be the pathetic country that it is today, and this is why so many Iranians are "obsessed" with the Arabs! We are still paying heavily and dearly for the Arab invasion, and what they left behind, a war manifesto full of bedouin balderdash and desert fairytales, i.e., the Quran.

Now go spin your Hezbo misinformation!

Brian Appleton

very good essay. I believe

by Brian Appleton on

very good essay. I believe that Islam was spread much more by Sufiism than by the sword...