• Christianity. The NT contains explicit passages about Jesus sending his disciples out to spread the gospel. There was a brief conflict among the first Christians as to whether the gospel would apply only to those who were Jews already, or whether it'd also apply to the gentile. The latter faction won out, especially with the apostle Paul's influence. Lots of missionary activity followed.
• Islam. Has the concept of Dawah, which means "to invite". This is mentioned several times in the Q'uran.

These are the examples I personally feel comfortable giving. If requested I can dig out the specific Bible verses / Q'uran verses that support this position.

Let's make a list of yea or nay...

Let's not.

There are very clear missionizing statements and continuing missionizing efforts in some sects, such as the Hare Krishnas, [the Bahaïs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneering (Bahá'í&41;), and the [Mormons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionary_(LDS_Church)) (some of whom even practice posthumous conversion of everyone whose genealogical data they can get who don't specifically opt out).

The division you are trying to enforce between "anecdotal instances" of particular religious and secular leaders and religious doctrine, however, is a false conception.

• The primary reason is that religion organized monolithically and separately from the state is very much the exception and not the rule. Religious and political power typically work together, so that even most conversion to what gets called "Chinese folk religion" followed the chariots and foot soldiers. Similarly, Chinese resistance to Western and Japanese imperialism (and even their own governments) was typically mixed up with religious appeals.
• The religious and political powers are responsible for both the formulation and enforcement of doctrine, so that even while Islam is particular in pointedly banning forced conversion it has still occurred with some regularity. Similarly, while Islam banned forced conversion, it imposed a duty to spread the authority of the religion.
• Every major religion has splintered repeatedly. Outside of their own theology, there is not even one "Christianity" or "Islam"; the situation is much more extreme in even more unorganized religions such as "Buddhism", "Hinduism", and "Chinese folk religion". Some leaders will produce texts supporting missionizing or even forced conversion. Whether those texts and glosses are considered the "standard" religion is a judgment call and numbers game that can change over time (as in Zoroastrianism and Judaism). It is not usually a philosophical determination.
• Even anecdotal instances in Jewish history became parts of their holy scriptures but are not necessarily looked upon as encouraging or even permitting conversion today. Meanwhile, anecdotal aspects of Jesus's behavior towards his disciples and Muhammad's towards his companions have been turned into doctrines, despite not being "clearly stated" as general philosophical principles binding on all future believers.

In short, it's possible to say that Islam's universally accepted Scripture unequivocally states that it's incumbent on believers to spread the faith... but there's nothing like the Mormon 2-year sign-up (which is itself voluntary) and hadith has meant that even doctrines like jihad can be taken by most believers as a metaphorical point. Meanwhile, Hinduism can be understood as an ethnic religion uninterested in conversion but a particular swami's sect can have people shaving their heads and preaching his doctrine in airports and bus terminals as a fundamental part of their faith.

It's much messier than you want to make it out to be.