And for your safety, you are not supposed to discuss matters above your mental approach.

I have not said a single line regarding any Mullah or anyone or any ethnic group. I am a moderate person. And what i said are my beliefs.

What you are trying to prove is your "low level" of understanding. As being a Muslim, I 100% believe that the Land (earth) is just for those who are believers i.e. the Muslims.

Toba bhai toba toaba
Y log to pakar k gala kaat lete hain

While Arabia is the cradle of Islam, I always fail to comprehend why people take the history of Arabs synonymous with history of Islam. What does "Islam was spread by sword" actually refer to? If it implies that Muslims conquered vast swathes of land then hardly anyone can gainsay that. If that means that Islam was shoved down people's throat then the opinion will vary.

The reasons why Muslim despots set their heart to the conquest of near and distant lands was hardly for the glory of Islam. The lust for power, the avarice for war booty, the intent to keep the belligerent clans from butchering one another, the machinations of Romans and Persians and countless other factors paved way for all those conquests. If at all Islam ever was somewhere, it must have been at the bottom of the list.

Coming to the people who embraced Islam... there were those who genuinely started to believe that it was the path of salvations, there were others who embraced just to avoid poll tax, still others who embraced it to fight the non-Muslims and have their chunk from the booty; the list can go on and on.

I do not find sufficient evidence to deduce that people were always coerced to embrace Islam. At least this was not the case with adherents of Abrahamic religions. Even today, there are around 10 million Coptic Christians in the Middle East. As to Zoroastrians, Prophet (P.B.U.H) had himself ordained Muslims to treat them like Muslims treated People of the Book. The only exception could be pagans who probably do not have any footprint in the ME.

The most balanced and well-articulated comment in the whole thread.

__________________
"Everything the light touches, is our kingdom."

It's indeed a fallacy to assume that Wars waged by Prophet PBUH were defensive in nature. Prophet of Islam waged aggressive wars.The war of Badar and Conquest of Makkah are glaring examples in this regard. Muslims build this narrative of defensive war only to negate the term 'clash of civilisations'.


Muslims started their territorial expansion under the second Caliph of Islam, namely Hazrat Umar. Deep analysis of those conquests forces us to believe that underlying principle behind such aggressive expansion was to Propagate Islam. Hazrat Umar wanted to reach every corner of the world to propagate Islam. Consequently, battle grounds were initiated at Persia, Israel, Egypt and Africa.The method he adopted was aggressive in nature. Current Jihadists somehow draw their inspiration from Hazrat Umar.

The second Territorial Expansion was triggered by Walid Bin Abdul Malik who belonged to the House of Ummayads. His armies penetrated Asia through MB Qasim and Europe through Tariq Bin Zayad. Close study of that era convinces us to believe that underlying principle of that Aggression was lust for Power, glory and booty.

When foreign territories were invaded People flocked to embrace Islam owing to following reasons:


To avoid Jaziya
To raise their social status as Being Muslims was considered 'cool'
To Win favour from Caliph
To get high posts
Or they were deeply touched by the teachings of Islam


The Mass conversion happened only because Muslims captured foreign territories and we all know how territories are captured.

Sword!

^

Like majority of the Muslims, I also reckon that the wars waged by Prophet (P.B.U.H) had divine inspiration. Allah had revealed that Muslims could fight those who had driven them from their homes (the Meccans) soon after Hejirah. While Prophet (P.B.U.H) never incited the Battle of Badr, his Companions did misconstrue his command and for those companions, Allah Himself made an exception in the Quran. While this argument will not hold water before many out there, I deem it more a matter of faith.

That said, it would be a sweeping statement to say that Hazrat Umar resorted to war just to spread Islam. That was certainly one factor but there were others which were no less significant. The bellicose Arabs had little to do in their lives besides war. Had their energy not been directed to the conquest of other lands, it would have engendered nothing but blood and carnage among the Muslims. This can be corroborated by the sanguinary feuds that ensued in the times of Hazrat Usman and Hazrat Ali between two Muslims cliques which fractured Islam for good.

At the risk of digressing, I dare say that the jihadists of today have nothing to do with Hazrat Umar's way. Why? Because Hazrat Umar conquered non-Muslims territories. How many jihadists have been wreaking hell in non-Muslim countries? The only restive nations are those where Muslims form sizable majority. Overlooking all the political gimmicks between the major powers, the lucrative business it has become and many other determinants; it is more a debate of Khuruj (rebellion). The inspiration for militant Islam comes from Imam ibn Tamiyyah who rose up against the Mongols for they had embraced Islam but still followed their traditional Yassa code. The literature of Juhayman ibn Saif Ottaibi (the one who laid siege to Kabah in KSA few decades ago) and Imam ibn Taimiyah primarily form the bedrock of their ideology. Do Muslims who embrace Islam but still continue to follow ways of infidels can be considered Muslims? Can a Muslim state helping a non-Muslim state bomb and flatten a Muslim country be considered Muslim? These and many other ancillary questions are answered by the aforementioned literature. There are obviously other factors too but my contention is that this is more a realm of theology than history (at a more academic level, the line gets really thin though).

Historians call the wars waged by Prophet Muhammad PBUH as offensive while Theologians term them holy wars. You're right when you say 'it's a matter of faith'

We can always argue about the motives of Hazrat Umar behind invading foreign territories. Most historians seek refuge in 'strong conviction' of Hazrat Umar. I think disintegration during the tenure of Caliph Usman can be attributed to his lax ruling style.

TTP draws some motivation from Hazrat Umar and that is reflected in their official website and numerous public pronouncements. They're not invading foreign territories because they want to establish Their rule at home first. After all, Hazrat Umar channelised his foreign invasions from Islamic republic.

I agree with you partially on Imam ibn Tamiyah. I think he only strengthened what has been cooking in the minds of fundamentalists. Moreover, Tamiya in his famous work repeatedly refers to Hazrat Umar to corroborate his view point.

We can always argue that why Muslims took sword but the fact is that Sword helped a lot in bringing masses to the fort of Islam. Again it's open to debate that whether Islam spread under the direct or indirect influence of sword but We can't ignore the stark fact that Sword played a key and massive role!

Without contesting any of the points made by you ( which should not imply agreement) , I would just like to add that theologians have a different way of looking at history (which usually divulges the truth). The history recorded by Western authors is usually an eclectic mix. Their sources are usually Tabarri, Masudi, Waqidi etc. Same goes true for many Muslim historians. However, if you ever get to read historical incidents from books like Tareekh-e Baghdad, you will find out how much of it has been distorted. This is because the traditionalists use the same criterion for recording historical events that they use for recording a tradition e.g the narrator should be credible, the narrator should have met so and so person etc.

Your opinion as to Hazrat Usman's laxity has been put forward by many a Muslim historians including Maulana Maududi. However, a perusal of all the officials that he had appointed actually explicates how ridiculous such allegations are.

I know Tareekh e Baghdad as a controversial book. The author has jolted the beliefs of Sunni Muslims. The most interesting part is his critique of Imam Abu Hanifa. As per my understanding history has been distorted to a large extent, resultantly, it's hard to 'judge'