Why is it called the religion of peace if it has mainly been spread through war?

What is India?

The largest islamic populated country in the says otherwise

/thread

...

It was mainly spread by traders and missionaries though. That's not debatable.

Holy fucking kek, kys retard.

>hating on Islam

Remember this.
Arab in greek is aravas.
Rabbi in greek is ravino.
So what did the arabs do to greek culture? How did they invade it?

Nobody really says Islam is the most peaceful religion. That's a /pol/ meme.

Why is Christianity called religion of peace if it has mainly spread through war?

Most of those early "conquests" had people submitting to the Muslims without a fight because they were tired of getting shit on by their Roman overlords for deviating from Orthodoxy.

>Why is it called the religion of peace if it has mainly been spread through war?

taqiyya

For one, I have never heard anyone calling Christianity a religion of peace. Second, it spread by royal houses adopting Christianity one b yone and, subsequently, to its inhabitants. With the notable exception of the Franks who were not shy ofagressive Christening.

Name three religions that have spread by way of waging war comparable to Islam.

It is just propaganda that is utilized to support a hidden agenda.
WAR = PEACE
FREEDOM = SLAVERY
IGNORANCE = STRENGTH

>hating on islam

pretty hard not to be when all the arabs were fighting each other even before muhammad had his '''visit''' from gabriel or w/e plus saying it spread because of war while true kind of misses the point, it's hardly the reason for the wars - to ignore the lust for power, trade and whatever else and to only focus on religion is naive

the religion of peace stuff is nonsense though, it's an abrahamic religion, there are plenty of verses for peace and others for violence, muhammad did some violent things but plenty of good things in context of the time and place

need to remove fundamentalists from every walk of life and we'll be alright

it is etymologically close to submission, surrender and peace not slavery and the meaning is mainly seen to be a mix of submission and surrender - again, not slavery, the main root is al-silm which means submission or surrender

You're not doing your claim any favour by equating the arabian empire's expansion with the expansion of islam.
One followed as a result of the other and is by itself not responsible for the geopolitical conquest of much of the 'known world'.

Not him but I'll give it a try.

The greek pantheon
Christianity
Whatever the hell the Assur- cult/religion the Assyrians adhered to.

You do realize why the Rashidun Caliphate was formed?

>Christainity a good boy it dindu nuffin

Yea no it was spread by the sword same as every other religion.

Why is it called Pax Romana if it has mainly been spread through war?

>every religion is spread by the sword

kys

*tips fedora*

Top kek it wasn't spread in the same as Islam at all, at least not initially. Literally every area that is predominantly Islamic was conquered by Muslim invaders and then the locals were persecuted/made dhimmi.

Christianity only spread through the sword once it became political, which marks the major difference between the two. Islam is always political.

It isn't.

Why is it called the Holy Roman Empire if it is neither holy nor Roman nor an Empire?

>Literally every area that is predominantly Islamic was conquered by Muslim invaders

Tell me about Islamic conquest of Java.

>(pic related): the post
also, "religion of Peace" isn't like an official thing, just something that a few Western Muslims used to shill before it overwhelmingly got used by anti-Islamic arguments and fedoras way more than any Muslims ever said it

Indonesia is admittedly different. I concede I should have written most.

>Christianity only spread through the sword once it became political
>once it became political
Is that supposed to mean something?

Also, What are Saxons, Lithuanians, Prussians, Yugrans, Lettgalians, Frisians, etc...
protip: they weren't "peacefully"made christian

Yeah it is. Christianity isn't also a political system. Islam is.

>bringing up people that were converted after Christianity became involved in the politics of the empire

Wow, got me

>First hundred years of Christendom: prosecuted and spread as a reaction towards Roman imperialism, especially among slaves
>First hundred years of Islam: forcefully spread by conquest
:3

b-but conquering land is separate from spreading Islam!!

If the crusades were for retaking lands the muslims stole then what happened at the fourth crusade?

Is there anything more cringy then europeans bitching about others conquering and warring?

lmao the crusades were retarded, especially after the third one.

alexios is the only reason they had any legitimacy whatsoever

Then you have all of the native Americans, Africans, and others who were persecuted.

If you mean to tell me that Christianity was peaceful for only the first 200 years of its life cycle then I'm not interested.

>missing the point

>hahahah look at these niggers they couldn't conquer anything so weak
>WTF FUCKING MUDSLIMES WHY DID THEY CONQUER THINGS HOW DARE THEY

t. /pol/

Early Christianity spread through the exact opposite means.

Martyrdom was a serious thing when Rome liked to fuck with Christians, and they proudly died for Jesus to emulate his own death as sacrifice for the world

It took a very long time before Christianity became a political player with armies and economic power

Your violent piece of shit religion was founded upon the conquest of Mecca

Fuck off

Only autistic LARPers care that Muslims conquered shit.

The discussion is about how people try to claim violence isn't inherent in Islam when it was the backbone of Islamic expansion.

Martyrdom was only important to other Christian. The average Roman saw plenty of death in the arenas

Gib constantinople back sandnigger.

Gib canstontinopoolus

I am surprised you have come with the greek panteon. They lack any universal ambitions and is not militaristic at all. The Greeks themselves after conquering new territory were happy to leave local religions intact or bring in syncretic deities. With Christianity you are plain wrong. But on Assur I can appreciate your point. They indeed had some religious doctrine commanding to conquer new regions agressively. That leaves us with only one religion, one that is not relevant for centuries, comparable to Islam.

It was originally called Pax Augustae for Augustus brought peace and prosperity after a century of internal turmoil and infighting.
What is your point? That Euros were the most succesfull at territorial conquest and war? Why should it only be expected of the West to be pacifist adn peaceloving hippies?
Why are you even on Veeky Forums?

It was also important to the poor and down trodden who had nothing to live for. They thought the Roman gods didn't care for them so they converted to the one God who promised them eternal life after they died

>The discussion is about how people try to claim violence isn't inherent in Islam when it was the backbone of Islamic expansion.

I don't get this meme. Are you implying that violence didn't exist before islam? Were the Romans muslim? Were the ancient persians muslim?

Christianity did the same.

Because doublespeak

Because, after everyone has been submitted to Islam, there will be peace.

>implying fundamentalists have legitimacy

>Greeks left local gods alone

Book of Maccabee

>It was originally called Pax Augustae for Augustus brought peace and prosperity after a century of internal turmoil and infighting.

>Empire expands through centuries of war, reaching limits of tenable expansion, so pauses to consolidate its subjects
>Pax

Is it possible for Islamic apologists to defend their religion without resorting to whataboutism?

People who use the term "religion of peace" are pretty much always strongly anti-islam

Example: your post

How do they resort to whataboutism?

>What is your point? That Euros were the most succesfull at territorial conquest and war? Why should it only be expected of the West to be pacifist adn peaceloving hippies?

>Islam was historically spread through war
>That's hypocritical coming from a european
>Get good scrub
So are you ceding the point here with graceful subtlety?

Well Augustus intended for that peace to last and fight only defensive wars, but every Emperor after him had to show they had a big dick by conquering some piece of land even if it was worthless like Britain.

>Framing context as diversion

>Augustus at some point claimed that rome would no longer expand
Source?

>christianity and islam started in the same place
>but only one is the majority there

By claiming Christianity has done similar things.

But it's clearly relevent.

Its not as Islam started violent opposed to christianity.
The means of spreading in the first 300 years were radically different.

But christianity was spread just as violently a millenium later during the european colonialism and the age of empires, which was when it did the bulk of its expansion.

Also, the roman state expanded just as violently half a millenium earlier in its first century as the arab state did.

>but then it expanded violently many centurys after its initial founder died, it had splintered into sects and europa was not governed theocratically anymore

Dude at least bring up the crusades or some shit, this is getting pathethic.

Leftypol please, Islam is against everything you claim to defend

>The majority of christian expansion occured during the age of exploration / empires
>The majority of islamic expansion occured in the first centuries of its empire

It's very convenient that you only want to look at the first 100 years of each religion, and ignore the rest. Obviously a religion is going to spread more peacefully inside a single state than once it has reached the states borders and its expansion is synonymous with the state's expansion.

>but only one is the majority there

yeah judaism.

>Obviously a religion is going to spread more peacefully inside a single state than once it has reached the states borders and its expansion is synonymous with the state's expansion.
>single state
How about you read up on the spreading of Christianity before you return to this thread. It spread even in its earliest years outside of a single state.

Jesus Christ you fucking idiot, you keep directing the discussion of Islam to something or ignore it entirely.

Pre-Islam, Arabia was a bunch of warring tribes.
Islam united all of Arabia.
The Middle East was under the occupation of the Byzantine
Muslims defeated the occupation and the people of the Middle East welcomed them because their rule was much better than Byzantines' rule

>islam spread by the sword

a recycled statement by folks who are satisfied to learn history through word of mouth

And those wonderful peace-loving christians sure were tolerant towards pagans and other religions in the Roman Empire circa 3rd and 4th Centuries.
Do you know why the Colosseum is in such shit condition? Christcuck fanatics stripped it of its marble to build churches. When you act like your brand of schizophrenia is better than the other you come off as a fucking retard.

There's a reason there's still Yazidis, Bahais, Maronites, Druze, Zoroastrians etc. in the Middle East while there are ZERO pagansor older european religions (aside from autistic celt LARPers) because while Islam is fine with taxing minorities to death, Christianity thrives on their wholesale genocide.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_pagans_in_the_late_Roman_Empire#Anti-pagan_actions_by_ordinary_Christians

Its funny to call others intolerant when your ancestors finished the job a long time ago

>ignoring the time frame we're talking about and spouting the same information over and over a million times

Thanks Ahmed, we understand Christians were violent after they gained political power.

>implying the spread of Islam has nothing to do with Muslims conquering giant swaths of land and then eradicating or taxing the shit out of other religious groups

>genocide
i wouldn't call forced conversions, destruction of temples, the banning of sacrifices and possession of idols genocide. there were few wholesale slaughters, and pagans certainly weren't an ethnic group, a key part of it being a "genocide"

It really depended on the time frame but that's pretty much a universal rule

>eradicating other religious groups
You mean how Muslims protected Christians and Jews and treated them much better than other global powers?

>taxing the "shit out of" people
Both Muslims and Non-Muslims are taxed by the government. One is called Zakat and the other Jizya.

Refer to the Syrians and how they much preferred the Muslims over the Byzantines.

Taxes were less under Muslim rule than either Byzantine or Persians.

No one wanted to eradicate such a lucrative source of revenue either. Especially not the early Arabs who were elitist as all fuck and wanted Islam to remain only for Arabs. If you want to talk about the expansions of borders you can bring up violence to your heart's content, but the actual religion was spread because a mix of social and political factors. Including tax benefits, representation in government, social standing, etc. In certain cases violence was indeed used, but violence wasn't the main way the religion spread.

This. I live in a muslim Country and I only heard about "religion of peace" on Veeky Forums.

>Christianity only spread through the sword once it became political
Christianity stayed political for a long part of its existence and was being used as a casus belli by european nations for everything.
It's only in the 19 century that it left the political scene.

It literally means "submission", how does anybody with google translate even believe this propaganda?

Another meme is that Crusades were a product of Christian aggression

That's because you don't have to deceive anybody, the Muslims already took over.

Beat me to it

>false equivalency
Doesn't address OP

this mutes them haters

>implying they weren't
The 4th Crusade was the final byproduct of Christian """""""""defence""""""""""" against the brutal Muslim hordes kek

Only for Iran it was through war. The rest were mostly through Jewish and Monophysite collaborators

Okay, everyone already knows this and you keep ignoring the actual discussion about the violent/political nature that existed in Islam from the start.

Kek, pagans weren't treated the same as people of the book

I will however admit that my statement on taxes was too exaggerated.

I wasn't talking about people of the book being eradicated, though Muhammad did massacre Jews once during the Medinan period, though I don't remember the circumstances.

Also afghanistan and india.
And some parts of central asia such as khotan.
And egypt.
Also southspain.

Are you quoting Voltaire?

B-but conquering land and then making other religions second class citizens doesn't help spread the faith at all!

While conquering that land doesn't assure a majority of people will convert, over time it does make it far more likely.

People for some reason just can't admit that the spread of Islam is tied directly to making war until SEA