Somalia ( /soʊˈmɑːliə/ soh-mah-lee-ə; Somali: Soomaaliya; Arabic: الصومال‎ aṣ-Ṣūmāl), officially the Somali Republic (Somali: Jamhuuriyadda Soomaaliya,Arabic: جمهورية الصومال‎ Jumhūriyyat aṣ-Ṣūmāl) and formerly known as the Somali Democratic Republic under Socialist rule, is a country located in the Horn of Africa. Since the outbreak of the Somali Civil War in 1991 there has been no central government control over most of the country's territory.[2] The internationally recognizedTransitional Federal Government controls only a small part of the country. Somalia has been characterized as a failed state and is one of the poorest and most violent states in the world.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

Somalia lies in the easternmost part of Africa. It is bordered by Djibouti to the northwest, Kenya to the southwest, the Gulf of Aden with Yemen to the north, the Indian Ocean to the east, and Ethiopia to the west. It has the longest coastline on the continent,[13] and its terrain consists mainly of plateaus, plains and highlands.[2] Hot conditions prevail year-round, along with periodic monsoon winds and irregular rainfall.[14]

In antiquity, Somalia was an important centre for commerce with the rest of the ancient world,[15][16] and according to most scholars,[17][18] it is among the most probable locations of the fabled ancient Land of Punt.[19][20] During the Middle Ages, several powerful Somali empires dominated the regional trade, including theAjuuraan State, the Sultanate of Adal, the Warsangali Sultanate and the Gobroon Dynasty. In the late nineteenth century, the British and Italians gained control of parts of the coast, and established British Somaliland and Italian Somaliland[21] In the interior, Muhammad Abdullah Hassan's Dervish State successfully repulsed the British Empire four times and forced it to retreat to the coastal region,[22] but the Dervishes were finally defeated in 1920 by British airpower.[23] Italy acquired full control of their parts of the region in 1927. This occupation lasted until 1941, when it was replaced by a British military administration. Northern Somalia would remain a protectorate, while southern Somalia became a trusteeship. In 1960, the two regions were united to form an independent Somali Republic under a civilian government.[24] Mohamed Siad Barre seized power in 1969 and established the Somali Democratic Republic. In 1991, Barre's government collapsed as the Somali Civil War broke out.

Since 1991, no central government has controlled the entirety of the country, despite several attempts to establish a unified central government.[25] The northwestern part of the country has been relatively stable under the self-declared, but unrecognized, sovereign state of Somaliland.[26] The self-governing region of Puntland covers the northeast of the country. It declares itself to be autonomous, but not independent from Somalia.[2] The Islamist Al-Shabaab controls a large part of the south of the country. Without a central government, Somalia's inhabitants subsequently reverted to local forms of conflict resolution, either civil, Islamic, or customary law.[2] The internationally recognized Transitional Federal Government controls only parts of the capital and some territory in the centre of the nation, but has reestablished national institutions such as the Military of Somalia, and is working towards eventual national elections in 2012, when the interim government's mandate expires.[27][28] During the two decades of war and lack of government, Somalia has maintained an informal economy, based mainly on livestock, remittance/money transfer companies, andtelecommunications.[2][29]

Answer 1

Dr. Zakir Naik in his book 'Answers to non-Muslims common questions' reply to this question as;

It is a common complaint among some non-Muslims that Islam would not have millions of adherents all over the world, if it had not been spread by the use of force. The following points will make it clear, that far from being spread by the sword, it was the inherent force of truth, reason and logic that was responsible for the rapid spread of Islam.

1. Islam means peace.

Islam comes from the root word 'salaam', which means peace. It also means submitting ones will to Allah (swt). Thus Islam is a religion of peace, which is acquired by submitting one's will to the will of the Supreme Creator, Allah (swt).

2. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace.

Each and every human being in this world is not in favour of maintaining peace and harmony. There are many, who would disrupt it for their own vested interests. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace. It is precisely for this reason that we have the police who use force against criminals and antisocial elements to maintain peace in the country. Islam promotes peace. At the same time, Islam exhorts it followers to fight where there is oppression. The fight against oppression may, at times, require the use of force. In Islam force can only be used to promote peace and justice.

3. Opinion of historian De Lacy O'Leary.

The best reply to the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword is given by the noted historian De Lacy O'Leary in the book "Islam at the cross road" (Page 8): "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 myth that historians have ever repeated."

4. Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years.

Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. The Muslims in Spain never used the sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims. There was not a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the adhan (that is the call for prayers.)

5. 14 million Arabs are Coptic Christians.

Muslims were the lords of Arabia for 1400 years. For a few years the British ruled, and for a few years the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.

6. More than 80% non-Muslims in India.

The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non- Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword.

7. Indonesia and Malaysia.

Indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of Muslims in the world.

The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. May one ask, "Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia?"

8. East Coast of Africa.

Similarly, Islam has spread rapidly on the East Coast of Africa. One may again ask, if Islam was spread by the sword, "Which Muslim army went to the East Coast of Africa?"

9. Thomas Carlyle.

The famous historian, Thomas Carlyle, in his book "Heroes and Hero worship", refers to this misconception about the spread of Islam: "The sword indeed, but where will you get your sword? Every new opinion, at its starting is precisely in a minority of one. In one man's head alone, there it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all men. That he takes a sword and try to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can."

10. No compulsion in religion.

With which sword was Islam spread? Even if Muslims had it they could not use it to spread Islam because the Qur'an says in the following verse:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error"

[Al-Qur'an 2:256]

11. Sword of the Intellect.

It is the sword of intellect; the sword that conquers the hearts and minds of people. The Qur'an says in Surah Nahl, chapter 16 verse 125:

"Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching;

and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious."

[Al-Qur'an 16:125]

12. Increase in the world religions from 1934 to 1984.

An article in Reader's Digest 'Almanac', year book 1986, gave the statistics of the increase of percentage of the major religions of the world in half a century from 1934 to 1984. This article also appeared in 'The Plain Truth' magazine. At the top was Islam, which increased by 235%, and Christianity had increased only by 47%. May one ask, which war took place in this century which converted millions of people to Islam?

13. Islam is the fastest growing religion in America and Europe.

Today the fastest growing religion in America is Islam, the fastest growing religion in Europe in Islam. Which sword is forcing people in the West to accept Islam in such large numbers?

14. Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson.

Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson rightly says, "People who worry that nuclear weaponry will one day fall in the hands of the Arabs, fail to realize that the Islamic bomb has been dropped already, it fell the day MUHAMMED (pbuh) was born".

Answer 2 - Non-Muslim Answer

Reconciling the Terms

Islam is called "the religion of peace" because of how it self-defines. The root S-L-M ( سلم) is part of Salaam (سلام) which means peace and Istislaam (إستسلام) which means surrender. The essence of the idea is that when somebody surrenders to the Divine Will, they will be at peace. This following of Divine Law that creates peace is what Islam means. Of course, this says nothing about those who refuse to surrender to the Divine Will, which is where the sword comes in.

Islam rarely forced conquered people's to convert or die. There were specific instances when this happened, but it was not common. However, Islam was directly tied to the Caliphates which were theocratic empires that launched offensive wars against neighboring kingdoms. These conquests were sometimes relatively bloodless, such as the Arab march across North Africa and were sometime punctuated by numerous battles and destruction of enemy property and civilians, such as occurred in Spain and the Balkans. They instituted policies that made non-Muslim citizens into second-class citizens with additional requirements in terms of taxation (sometimes including confiscation of children), limits of choices of profession, required living areas, and restrictions on their freedom to argue against Muslims in both religious and civil matters.

Islam explicitly justified (and leaders like Zakir Naik continue to justify) inequality between Muslims and Non-Muslims in Muslim society because Non-Muslims have not accepted the Divine Will and are therefore not capable of being part of the peace that Islam (surrendering to the Divine Will) provides.

Unfortunately, most people (Muslims and Non-Muslims) do not define the term "Religion of Peace" and leave it to the unitiated to define it, resulting in other definitions such as:

• Does it mean that everyone who follows the religion is peaceful? In this case Islam is not such a religion whereas Jainism would be. There are numerous non-extremist Muslims who proudly serve in many nations' armed forces, police forces, and other apparatuses where a person is thrown into non-peaceful situations. Jains, Amish, and Quakers (for example) are not in a similar position.
• Does it mean that Islam promotes peace over violence?In that case Islam probably is a religion of peace, but so are just about all religions aside from death cults and the term becomes meaningless. This is the view taken by celebrated theologian Tariq Ramadan.
• Does it mean that when Islam becomes the dominant religion in an area, that area sees peace? In this case, the claim is demonstrably false. The Fitna Al-Kubra, for example, was a war that existed entirely within Islam. The Fatimid-Seljuk conflict was entirely between Muslims, many of the conquests of Tamerlane, which were egregiously bloody were of fellow Muslim territories, and the Almohads slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Muslims in peacetime for believing differently than them. (All of these wars occurred before European political ascendance.) Today in many Islamic countries, human rights are actively repressed and religious leaders promote the dehumanization of non-Muslims, which is expressly anti-peace.
• Does it mean that most Muslims are peaceful people? In this case, yes, Islam is a peaceful religion overall and its adherents are usually very boring people (in the sense that they are not involved in geopolitics) who go to work every weekday and love their children. Again this does not make Muslims different or special from other religious groups since nearly every religion feels this way.

On Islam and the Sword

As for the argument that Islam was not spread by the sword, Islam as a religion spread more due to the inequalities in Muslim society that encouraged conversion and the spread of Islam between converts in Islamic Empires and trade partners outside of the empires through peaceful means. However, to say that Islam spread with little connection to the imperial conquests of the Caliphates makes little sense. Specifically concerning the fourteen bulletpoints listed above to make the case that Islam was not spread by the sword, which is not actually the case, a refutation to those views follows below. The order roughly matches the order provided in those fourteen points with the bulletpoint that it refutes in paretheticals. -- Bulletpoint one is addressed by the "Reconciling the Terms" section.

1. Defensive War and Resistance (2)

This is a red-herring. Nobody objects to defensive warfare to protect your beliefs and the question does not even ask about this. It asks about "spreading" which implies offensive war, militant outreach, or peaceful outreach with the intent to expand Islam. It is undeniable that armies of Muslims conquered neighboring regions and continued on an expansionary conquest. Even if they were being threatened by the Byzantine Empire and Zoroastrian Empire, which are unlikely, stripping one of 2/3 of its territory, completely enveloping the other and then sending military missions beyond the borders of those countries to the hinterland is not defensive warfare.

2. Opinion of the historian De Lacy O'Leary and the Christian Polemicist Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson (3) & (14)

Both of the quotes referred to in Answer 1 are quote-mined and taken entirely out of context. De Lacy O'Leary was not saying that there was no conquest, but that the conquest was not subject to fanaticism.

This is the full quote from De Lacy O'Leary in context:

"The loss of revenue from conversions was so serious that, in spite of protests, tribute was levied even from those who had embraced Islam. In fact, within ten years from the Prophet's death, by the conquest of great and wealthy provinces, Islam was faced with conditions which had never been contemplated and the attempt to reconstruct it so as to preserve the original purpose under these new conditions, was too artificial to last. 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. There are plenty of instances of such fanaticism and forced conversion, but these do not belong to the early history of Islam nor that of the Arabs; those stories come from the banks of the Niger, from the Sudan, and from Sumatra, and are connected with Muslim religious revivals of later days and dubious orthodoxy."

Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson was not describing the "Islamic Bomb" in a positive sense, but in a strongly negative fashion. His book: The Koran: Testimony of Antichrist, makes the ridiculous claim that Mohammad was himself the Anti-Christ and that Islam is a demonic scourge on mankind and is causing wanton damage like a nuclear bomb does. This is the proper interpretation of the quote regardless of the fact that his views are incendiary and ridiculous. When Muslim Apologists, like Zakir Naik, actually uses this source, they have undermined their argument because Pearson is claiming that Islam is violent and very un-peaceful.

3. Islamic Rule of Spain (4)

Almanzor was one of the most famous rulers of Andalucia (Islamic Spain), even if he was not a proper Caliph of the Umayyad Caliphate of Cordoba (also known as Andalucia). Almanzor is remembered historically in Spain precisely for punitive raids and devastating the various cities throughout northern Spain. He conducted over 60 such operations which destroyed Leon (984), Barcelona (985) Santiago de Compostela (997) Pamplona (999) and San Millan de la Cogolla (1002) along with other emblematic cities in the northern Christian Kingdoms. Almanzor fervently believed that he was acting in full compliance with the requirement of jihad (regardless of whether he was or not) and it is said that he would collect the dust and blood that stained his clothes during these anti-Christian incursions so that he could be interred with them. The argument that the Muslim invasion and conquest of Spain was peaceful is incorrect.

4. There are 8 million Christian Copts in Egypt and roughly 14 million worldwide (5)

This is true, but what happened to all of the Christians who lived in Tunisia (Tunis was an important Christian city). What happened to all of the Moroccan Jews (there were 260,000 in 1940 and there are now 3,600)? What happened to the Christian population of Anatolia? The fact that there are some Arab Christians left does not mean that force was not used, but merely that the result of the use of force has not fully achieved its goal. As concerns Copts specifically, throughout Morsi's Presidency, Coptic Churches in Egypt were bombed more frequently than usual and there was no recourse for Copts other than to flee. This resulted in some of the highest Coptic emigration rates in decades in the last two years.

5. 80% of Indians are non-Muslim and are Hindu (6)

Using the population of India alone is disingenuous. Muslims controlled Pakistan and Bangladesh as well as India as part of one unified Empire. If the populations of Pakistan and Bangladesh are added to India, the subcontinent is 35% Muslim, which makes sense given that Muslims only occupied the area for less than 500 years and internal information movement in India is very slow given a high terrain difficulties. This is why the largest Muslim populations were along Rivers where major cities were built by the Mughal. The closer to such a population center, the more likely a person would be compelled to convert. Akbar was known for his tolerance and reviled by Muslims for it although loved by non-Muslim Indians. His grandson Aurangzeb was known for compelling conversion and loved by Muslims for it and hated by non-Muslim Indians.

6. Islam spread to Indonesia and Malaysia without war (7)

It is true that Indonesia has the largest Muslim populations and no foreign Islamic army conquered Indonesia. However, once Islam established a beachhead in Indonesia through commerce and peaceful religious acquisition, Muslim armies did exist in Indonesia that were composed by Muslim Indonesian Sultanates (like the Acehnese). It took centuries of Sultanates and repressive policies in Indonesia to convert most Indonesians to Islam. Even today, Indonesian Islam is the most syncretic forms of Islam outside of Africa since not all of the local culture has been successfully purged.

Additionally, even if it were the case that Indonesian Islam was propagated entirely peacefully, just as European Jehovah's Witnesses were propagated entirely peacefully, it does not disprove the claim that Islam was spread by war. If Islam was spread by war even one time in a different context, the claim that it is not spread by war at all is incorrect.

7. Islam spread to the East Coast of Africa without war (8)

It's really the same argument as Indonesia above: peaceful beachhead to indigenous sultanate. However, there were some Arab conquests of East Africa (Omani Empire) as well as indigenous sultanates like the Zanzibar Sultanate and several Somali ones like Ajuuran State and the Warsangali Sultanate.

8. Forced Conversion Works (9)

The quote from Carlyle is used to justify the view that forcing a person to accept an idea does not work. However, while the religion of Islam did not usually expand through forcible conversion, it is not a ridiculous assertion to say that forcible conversion works, such as the quote and Answer A2 claim. Europe did this in many places which is what assured the strength of Catholicism in Spain, Austria, and France as opposed to Protestantism which grew organically in each of those territories. By using Inquisitions, Stake Burnings, and numerous other suppression techniques, the Catholics prevented the rise of Protestantism in these areas. As for citing Qur'anic verses in support of this idea, there is also verse 9:5 which is the famous "kill them wherever you find them" verse. Of course, Islamic Empires have typically been more tolerant (and thus more approving of the "no compulsion" verse) but the treatment of non-Muslims by Muslims was conditioned more on the governmental powers at any one time than by actions proscribed in the Qur'an since the Qur'an could sensibly be read either way. As to the Goa Analogy, since the Portuguese only controlled Goa, the Indian converts could easily flee to non-Portuguese controlled areas, but when you have an Empire whose borders stretch across timezones without break, there is no way to escape and so you are forced to deal with whatever the government may send your way. Additionally, the children of forced converts are often more accepting of the faith that their parents were compelled to join.

9. Pressure through Dhimmi Status (10)

While forced conversion was rare, there was certainly pressure placed on Non-Muslims of Islamic States called Dhimmi to convert within Islamic States. There is also Qur'anic verse 9:29 which provides an antipode to 2:109. There were economic, social, and political benefits to being a Muslim, which creates compulsion. Read about the status of Non-Muslims conquered by Islamic States in the Related Question below.

10. Intellectual Complexity of Islam (11)

This is a red-herring. Many very intellectual ideas, ideologies, and religions were exported through violence and many were not. This does not provide any useful information.

11. Conversion Rates (12) & (13)

The statistics on Western Conversion to Islam are taken out of context. In many Muslim countries it is either by law or by de facto societal conduct that conversion out of Islam to other religions (such as Christianity) is forbidden and punishable by death. On top of that, proselytization of these non-Muslim faiths is also punishable by long jail terms. As a result, Muslims who realize the Truth of other religions are few and far between and those who would admit to doing so are even rarer. As a result, most Muslim conversion to Christianity is minimal and kept secret to avoid death. The fact that Muslims are compelled to stay Muslims by force is just as problematic as forcibly converting non-Muslims to Islam. Compare that to Western countries where multi-culturalism and liberal values have allowed Islam to come to various countries and expose new people to its religion and its Truth. Additionally, conversion out of Christianity is barely even a consideration among other Westerners and certainly not something worth killing over.

If the marketplace of ideas were freer, it is likely that many more Muslims would convert to Christianity, given how effective Christian proselytizers have been in places where there is no ban on their activities (even with rules on no material inducements).