Is there a complete list of countries where Islam spread by the sword?

[gnostic]

This lie is made anti-Islam website .

this nothing to do Muslims history

Sorry, but I haven't been to any anti-Islamic website.

And much of the sources for Muhammad's life and that history of the early caliphates after Muhammad's death come from mainly Muslim sources. The victors often write the history.

 

[Godobeyer]

Sorry, but I haven't been to any anti-Islamic website.

And much of the sources for Muhammad's life and that history of the early caliphates after Muhammad's death come from mainly Muslim sources. The victors often write the history.

I am talking about during his life .
So what sources ?

 

[gnostic]

I am talking about during his life .
So what sources ?

• Ibn Hisham
• Al-Tabari
• al-Waqidi
• Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi

Both works of Ibn Hisham and Al-Tabari are based on an earlier source, a lost biography of Ibn Ishaq.

Whether you believe in their biographies or not, doesn't change the fact these are Muslim sources.

I supposed the Qur'an and hadiths could be used, but they were never written in historical context.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, the war between Muslims and Meccans was not in self defence.

The war began when Muhammad provoked the first armed conflict, prior to the battle of Badr in 624, because of Muhammad leading bandit raids against merchant caravans (623 - 624).

Can we not just leave that point for a moment?
We are still waiting for 'sources' that show how Muhammad and his companions behaved violently during the first 13 years in Macca after he had started to receive revelations..

I imagine it would only take me a few days in that scorching heat, before I lost my temper

 

[Godobeyer]

• Ibn Hisham
• Al-Tabari
• al-Waqidi
• Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi

Both works of Ibn Hisham and Al-Tabari are based on an earlier source, a lost biography of Ibn Ishaq.

Give the link to verify

 

[muhammad_isa]

• Ibn Hisham
• Al-Tabari
• al-Waqidi
• Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi

Both works of Ibn Hisham and Al-Tabari are based on an earlier source, a lost biography of Ibn Ishaq.

What particular prose from these makes your point?

 

[gnostic]

Can we not just leave that point for a moment?
We are still waiting for 'sources' that show how Muhammad and his companions behaved violently during the first 13 years in Macca after he had started to receive revelations..

I imagine it would only take me a few days in that scorching heat, before I lost my temper

There behaving "violently", began when Muhammad fled to Medina and residing there before the surrender of Mecca in 630.

Why are you ignoring part of his life when he was in Medina?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why are you ignoring part of his life when he was in Medina?

I'm not ignoring it .. I agree that the fighting started when he was forced to move to madina, due to his uncle's death. He narrowly escaped death himself, and many Muslims had already emigrated to Africa due to persecution.

Who started the war? Clearly, you feel that it was Muhammad. I suppose people who dislike Islam's expansion would naturally claim that.

 

[gnostic]

Give the link to verify

Sorry, I don't have links.

As I have said, the most important and the earliest biography come from Ibn Ishaq - Sīratu Rasūli l-Lāh ( سيرة رسول الله‎ "Life of the Messenger of God"), but this is lost. Recessions of Ibn Ishaq do exist in the following:

• Ibn Hisham, As-Sirah an-Nabawiyyah ("The Life of the Prophet")
• Al-Tabari, Tarikh al-Tabari, ("History of Prophets and Kings")

Much of details on battles and wars come from Al-Waqidi, Kitab al-Tarikh wa al-Maghazi ("Book of History and Campaigns"), including those in Muhammad's life.

My suggestion is reading Al-Waqidi's campaigns of Muhammad.

I hoped that help in some ways.

 

[gnostic]

I'm not ignoring it .. I agree that the fighting started when he was forced to move to madina, due to his uncle's death. He narrowly escaped death himself, and many Muslims had already emigrated to Africa due to persecution.

Who started the war? Clearly, you feel that it was Muhammad. I suppose people who dislike Islam's expansion would naturally claim that.

But the real start of the war, occurred in 623 - 624, when Muhammad led raids upon merchant caravans. These raids eventually culminated in 624, when the 1st battle took place - the Battle of Badr.

The raids were not defensive. If anything the Meccans sent a force to defend the last raid before Badr. It was Meccans doing the defending, and Muslims who initiated the raids in the first place.

If Muhammad left things alone when he fled to Medina, there probably wouldn't be war in the first place, but we would never know.

So why did Muhammad initiated the 1st raid?

 

[muhammad_isa]

But the real start of the war, occurred in 623 - 624, when Muhammad led raids upon merchant caravans. These raids eventually culminated in 624, when the 1st battle took place - the Battle of Badr.

Ah! So basically you are saying that they were provoked. Of course, you dismiss a decade of oppression of Muslims by the Quraysh. I expect that you agree with them that Muhammad was 'traitor' and a nuisance.

The raids were not defensive. If anything the Meccans sent a force to defend the last raid before Badr. It was Meccans doing the defending, and Muslims who initiated the raids in the first place.

That well may be so. As you say, you are getting this from Muslim historians .. neither of us was there to see exactly what happened.
Do you really think that the Maccans weren't planning to attack Madina in the near future?
..I think you'll find that they were!

 

[gnostic]

That well may be so. As you say, you are getting this from Muslim historians .. neither of us was there to see exactly what happened.
Do you really think that the Maccans weren't planning to attack Madina in the near future?
..I think you'll find that they were!

Sorry, but godobeyer stated I got my information from anti-Islamic or anti-Muslim websites, but Al-Waqidi and others are not non-Muslims or anti-Islamic.

My sources are not anti-Islamic. In fact they are pro-Islamic materials.

And you are arguing that historians didn't eye-witnessed the events, but the companions of Muhammad did. From what I can gather, Al-Waqidi's sources were the children and grandchildren of those companions.

And that you are arguing that these historians and biographers are not credible, only confirm to me of your bias and very weak. And that you are very selective of sources.

Bias, because if you considered the Qur'an, none of the stories about Adam, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Moses, David, Solomon and Jesus were ever eye-witnessed by Muhammad himself.

Second, Muhammad's claim that he got the Qur'an from God and Gabriel, is highly suspect and an obviously a lie.

 

[Augustus]

And that you are arguing that these historians and biographers are not credible, only confirm to me of your bias and very weak. And that you are very selective of sources.

It's usually Muslims who view them as credible.

Contemporary Western scholarship generally considers them to be full of retrofitted theology constructed for the purpose of quranic exegesis and apologetics.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Sorry, but godobeyer stated I got my information from anti-Islamic or anti-Muslim websites, but Al-Waqidi and others are not non-Muslims or anti-Islamic.

My sources are not anti-Islamic. In fact they are pro-Islamic materials.

And you are arguing that historians didn't eye-witnessed the events, but the companions of Muhammad did...

No, I'm not .. I think you'd better read my post again.

You claim the war started with these 'raids' .. I claim that the war started LONG BEFORE that!

 

[paarsurrey]

There are actually a lot of claims of such events, some quite emphatic at that.
I believe some are actually Quranic in origin. I can take a look at my sources if you want, although I take it for granted that they will be accused of being anti-Islamic. Which I might even agree with, but does not imply that they are in any sense wrong.

For example.
Regards

 

[gnostic]

You claim the war started with these 'raids' .. I claim that the war started LONG BEFORE that!

Says, you.

But there have been no declaration of war between Muslims and non-Muslims and no fighting of any sort, before Muhammad fled to Medina.

How can there be war, without a drop of blood being shed?

Blood were shed, when a caravan guard was killed in the last raid, before the battle of Badr, in 624.

And the raids on caravans were hardly an act of self defence. It is deliberate offensive attack on civilian target, as a mean of stealing.

Taking loots is stealing, regardless if there is a war or not, and Muhammad was a cowardly robber.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Says, you.

But there have been no declaration of war between Muslims and non-Muslims and no fighting of any sort, before Muhammad fled to Medina.

How can there be war, without a drop of blood being shed?

Blood were shed, when a caravan guard was killed in the last raid, before the battle of Badr, in 624.

And the raids on caravans were hardly an act of self defence. It is deliberate offensive attack on civilian target, as a mean of stealing.

Taking loots is stealing, regardless if there is a war or not, and Muhammad was a cowardly robber.

You are a hypocrite .. no worse!

You do not believe that the Qur'an is genuine. You do not believe that Hadith is genuine.
..and then you write a message defaming Muhammad, peace be with him, BASED ON THEM!

What a plonker!

 

[gnostic]

You are a hypocrite .. no worse!

You do not believe that the Qur'an is genuine. You do not believe that Hadith is genuine.
..and then you write a message defaming Muhammad, peace be with him, BASED ON THEM!

What a plonker!

If a person steal someone who travelling on the road, you would call that person "robber", would you?

If a group of people steal from an armoured truck or train, you would call them "robbers" or "bandits" or "pirates", wouldn't you?

If group people boarded a ship or boat, to steal from them, you would call them "pirates", wouldn't you?

So why would Muhammad and his followers be any different, when they ambush merchant caravans, steal from them, between 623 and 624?

The merchant caravans were civilian targets, not military targets, so you couldn't call these caravans "army". Muhammad stole from those caravans to profit from them, to buy more weapons, and probably in seeking revenge when they lost properties when they fled Mecca.

But is revenge, a noble or just act?

Just because Muhammad and his followers lost their properties, when the Meccans confiscated them, doesn't make Muhammad's action over stealing from caravans, "right".

I don't know if you have heard of the saying:

Two wrongs don't make it right.​

It mean, for example, that if someone rob you, and you rob someone else's, would make you no better than the robber, because you have just committed the same crime who stole from you, "robbery".

Muhammad and his armed followers are cowards, because they they have ambushed and robbed civilian targets.

And for you to call me hypocrite, when I am not the who rob people and I haven't sold anyone into slavery or owned a slave, make your accusation of hypocrisy - empty.

If anyone is to be accused of hypocrisy, it would be Muhammad.

Doesn't Muhammad teach it is wrong to steal? Doesn't the Qur'an teaches robbing people is a crime?

So what did Muhammad do in 623 and 624?

He sought out trader caravans to ambush and rob. And then while he was living in Medina, he introduced a new rule that stealing is OKAY, as long as you believe you are at war, even with a bunch of merchants, and call stealing - "taking spoils".

Tell, muhammad_isa:

Did those merchants steal from Muslims?
Did those merchants make war upon Muslims?
Were those merchants - "TROOPS"?​

And there lies, muhammad_isa, your prophet being a absolute hypocrite, putting loopholes, so that Muslims can legitimately rob non-Muslim people.

The hypocrisy is in Islam, where stealing is wrong, BUT stealing from non-Muslims as "spoils" is lawful.

Go look up the word - hypocrite - and understand its meaning.