rationalskepticism.org

willhud9 wrote:There is a reason why Islam for centuries was known as a religion of tolerance. There is also a reason why when it spread throughout Northern Africa and the Balkans it was met oftentimes with voluntary conversion to Islam, rather than forced submission to the "Will of Allah." Sure were Christians, Zoroastrians, Jews, etc. considered same status as Muslims? No. Much in the same way those that Rome subdued were not considered true Romans.

The point being that for centuries Muslims did not believe in forced conversions and conquering people to force infidels into Islam. The "Great Muslim Conquests" discussed in many history books as one giant event and summed up in one giant lesson is actually a nuance of complicated reasons why. The real common denominator as to why Islam spread was a) the people in the Middle East needed fertile land to farm, fresh water, and resources b) the Spread of Islam was a secondary effect to the expansion of the territory.

There were many Muslims of Arab descent who were against mass conversions of the people believing it lessened the importance of Arab faith. This is why the "faith tax" became a thing in the Muslim world where non-Muslims paid a tax for being non-Muslim. The Arab leaders did not want a dissatisfied or unruly population. As new leadership came into power and laws were laxed more people started to convert to Islam.

The ultimate point being if y'all could forgive the history rant is that Islam and the Quran is full of internal contradictions. But to suggest that to follow it to its conclusion ends in violence is ignorant. The link Aban links to even cites clear examples where the Quran stresses peace and reconciliation and even goes on to present apologetics rationalizing the more violent verses.