Were the empires "Islamic"?

[gnostic]

the concept of battle maybe different from you to Muslims historians, as what i noticed that they meant by a battle "ghazwa in Arabic" when an army marched under the leading of the prophet even if it doesn't fight and so it would be translated into English by the word battle.
while in Arabic we don't call Mu'ta a GHazwa we call it sarya because it wasn't led by the prophet and also it would be translated in to english by battle

You do realize that if you use such convention of language with the word for "battle", then there would be no battles in history, unless there were prophets who were leading armies?

If we go by Muslim's standard for "battle", then there would be no "battle" fought after Muhammad's death. That would mean all the battles that took place with Muslim armies weren't "battles" at all. Such use for the word "battle" would be rendered as utterly meaningless or irrelevant.

Muslim's ghazwa over-complicated the word "battle".

Giving one meaning for Muslims and another meaning for everyone else, would render the word meaningless.

For there to be any "battle" in war, there required at the very least, two large sides or two large armed forces, if not more, to be present and engaged in a fight.

Here are the following examples that ARE NOT "battle":

1. And when I mean large in my definition of battle, I do mean "large". If there are between 5 to 100 men per-side fight each other, that would either be called a "skirmish" or "raid", not a "battle".
2. Guerrilla warfare where one side hit-and-run the other side armed force, is not considered a "battle".
3. And if one side is armed, but the other side is not armed, like a merchant caravan or like an unarmed village or farm, such an attack is a "raid", not a "battle".
4. And if two armies face each other or one army follow the other army, for days or weeks, without fighting, then that's also not a "battle".
5. And an army going to place where there are no fighting, is not a "battle", regardless if there is a prophet or not leading the army.

So the Muslims interpretation for "battle" is or is not, is downright silly, if they think only armies led by a prophet could call it "battle"?

Let's stick with conventional use of the word, and not the way Muslims use the word "battle", to avoid misunderstanding.

Do you agree that the so-called "battle of Tabuk" is not a battle?

 

[dynavert2012]

You do realize that if you use such convention of language with the word for "battle", then there would be no battles in history, unless there were prophets who were leading armies?

If we go by Muslim's standard for "battle", then there would be no "battle" fought after Muhammad's death. That would mean all the battles that took place with Muslim armies weren't "battles" at all. Such use for the word "battle" would be rendered as utterly meaningless or irrelevant.

Muslim's ghazwa over-complicated the word "battle".

Giving one meaning for Muslims and another meaning for everyone else, would render the word meaningless.

For there to be any "battle" in war, there required at the very least, two large sides or two large armed forces, if not more, to be present and engaged in a fight.

Here are the following examples that ARE NOT "battle":

1. And when I mean large in my definition of battle, I do mean "large". If there are between 5 to 100 men per-side fight each other, that would either be called a "skirmish" or "raid", not a "battle".
2. Guerrilla warfare where one side hit-and-run the other side armed force, is not considered a "battle".
3. And if one side is armed, but the other side is not armed, like a merchant caravan or like an unarmed village or farm, such an attack is a "raid", not a "battle".
4. And if two armies face each other or one army follow the other army, for days or weeks, without fighting, then that's also not a "battle".
5. And an army going to place where there are no fighting, is not a "battle", regardless if there is a prophet or not leading the army.

So the Muslims interpretation for "battle" is or is not, is downright silly, if they think only armies led by a prophet could call it "battle"?

Let's stick with conventional use of the word, and not the way Muslims use the word "battle", to avoid misunderstanding.

Do you agree that the so-called "battle of Tabuk" is not a battle?

according to what i read and the definitions we agreed about, the day of tabuk was a day of victory without fighting, or a day of achieving victory without battle, no problem in concepts for me

and yeah after the prophet's death they don't call the battles as ghazwa or sarya but ma'rakah or mawqia'ah and also it would be translated to battle like you will find marakat alyarmouk or qadisyah

 

[gnostic]

Hi Pastek

With my attention on dynavert2012's reply, I missed this reply from you @ post 16. Sorry, I didn't mean to neglect your post.

It was the decision of the followers. For what i know, the prophet Muhammad didn't asked them to do it.

From what I remember of reading the Qur'an, nothing in it suggest creating empire or conquests of the Byzantine empire or the Persian Sassanian Empire.

Whether Muhammad told them (his followers) to attack these 2 empires, are another matter. I am not sure if he did or not.

They didn't do it for money or power, it was guided by the faith.
At last for the first believers.

My knowledge of what happen after Muhammad's death is admittedly limited. Most of my interests at this time was mostly focused on western Europe, during their Dark Ages.

Mostly I know that Muslims began conquering territories and kingdoms outside of the Arabian Peninsula, but not much (of knowledge) history internally among the prophet's inner circle. After Muhammad's death, my knowledge is rather hazy.

But I think your first statement ("They didn't do it for money or power, it was guided by the faith. ") is only partially true.

1. They had strong faith to Islam and all, I'd definitely say "true".
2. I would even agree with you that they weren't interested in money.
3. But I don't think they didn't do it for power.

Wasn't there internal conflict between two factions (I don't know if there were more than two factions) of who should lead, as the prophet's successor?

Abu Bakr (right?) became leader or caliph, but not without opposition from Muhammad's cousin (don't remember his name).

They didn't forced people to convert, in fact it took many centuries .

You and I seemed to have 2 different ideas on compulsions.

Even in Muhammad's time there were compulsion or coercion. I will give you an example of what I mean.

The city of Taif was besieged. Seeing that they were isolated (allies have surrender to the Muslims) they had no choice but to surrender, but Muhammad refused to accept their surrender unless they convert, and let his men destroy their idols.

If that's not compulsion than what is it?

What would have happen to the people if they reject conversion? Death? Sold them to slavery?

If Muhammad truly did want people to freely join Islam, then he shouldn't have to force them to convert, because what happened at Taif was force (through either the threats of death or slavery). Had there being no compulsion, then he could have left Taif to worship however they like.

No matter I look at it, there was only two choices, convert or not convert, but if I chose the later then I would risk my life or my freedom, and that to me is coercion.

 

[Pastek]

Hi Pastek

With my attention on dynavert2012's reply, I missed this reply from you @ post 16. Sorry, I didn't mean to neglect your post.

Hi gnostic, you don't have to apologize for that

Wasn't there internal conflict between two factions (I don't know if there were more than two factions) of who should lead, as the prophet's successor?

Abu Bakr (right?) became leader or caliph, but not without opposition from Muhammad's cousin (don't remember his name).

Yes Abu Bakar was the first caliph after Muhammad.
Many conflicts happened then as Omar (2nd Caliph) was killed, Othman (3rd Caliph) was killed, Ali (4th Caliph) was killed.

Shias think it should have been Ali after Muhammad instead of Abu Bakr.

You and I seemed to have 2 different ideas on compulsions.

Even in Muhammad's time there were compulsion or coercion. I will give you an example of what I mean.

The city of Taif was besieged. Seeing that they were isolated (allies have surrender to the Muslims) they had no choice but to surrender, but Muhammad refused to accept their surrender unless they convert, and let his men destroy their idols.

If that's not compulsion than what is it?

What would have happen to the people if they reject conversion? Death? Sold them to slavery?

For what i know, they accepted to become muslims later by themselves.
If someone refuses Islam he can't be killed. Generally he must pay the Jiziya (and keep his faith) or emigrate somewhere else.

 

[Aquitaine]

For what i know, they accepted to become muslims later by themselves.
If someone refuses Islam he can't be killed. Generally he must pay the Jiziya (and keep his faith) or emigrate somewhere else.

Wait so, the choice is essentially pay a "non-muslim tax", convert, or leave?

 

[Pastek]

Wait so, the choice is essentially pay a "non-muslim tax", convert, or leave?

Yes. But in the muslim countries of today it's not applicated.

 

[gnostic]

For what i know, they accepted to become muslims later by themselves.

From what I understand, Muhammad didn't left them much of choice. One of the conditions of surrender was to give up their religion and allowing his men to destroy their idols; Muhammad wouldn't accept surrender except on that condition and that to converting.

That to me sounded a lot like threat. In war, victor dictate the terms of surrender. Refusal to accept term, would mean death, usually for the leading if not the entire defeated populace, and the threat of selling people into slavery.

 

[gnostic]

If someone refuses Islam he can't be killed. Generally he must pay the Jiziya (and keep his faith) or emigrate somewhere else.

Convert or emigrate elsewhere is also considered coercion or compulsion.

 

[Aquitaine]

Yes. But in the muslim countries of today it's not applicated.

Why not?

 

[dynavert2012]

From what I understand, Muhammad didn't left them much of choice. One of the conditions of surrender was to give up their religion and allowing his men to destroy their idols; Muhammad wouldn't accept surrender except on that condition and that to converting.

That to me sounded a lot like threat. In war, victor dictate the terms of surrender. Refusal to accept term, would mean death, usually for the leading if not the entire defeated populace, and the threat of selling people into slavery.

what i know that the people of taif went to meet prophet Mohamed and they told him that they are accepting the Islam but the negotiations were around keeping an idol called "lat" they want to leave it without destroying for 3 months and then to destroy but the prophet refused and the negotiations ended by destroying it immediately, but they accept Islam by their own

 

[dynavert2012]

Convert or emigrate elsewhere is also considered coercion or compulsion.

what i know gnostic that before any war the Muslim army's leader is giving choices to the other army, the first one is to surrender and so to accept Islam or to pay Jizzya the second choice is to fight and then if we are victorious the options will be who wills to convert he can do it, who doesn't want to convert he could pay Jizya against providing him protection, so the non muslim poor he doesn't need to emigrate but just Muslims will confirm he really can't pay that Jizya and so the Caliphate will exempt him from it

 

[gnostic]

what i know that the people of taif went to meet prophet Mohamed and they told him that they are accepting the Islam but the negotiations were around keeping an idol called "lat" they want to leave it without destroying for 3 months and then to destroy but the prophet refused and the negotiations ended by destroying it immediately, but they accept Islam by their own

My understanding is that they went to Muhammad with offer to surrender, but Muhammad refused to accept them UNLESS they convert to Islam and destroy their idols.

(Source: Lewis, Bernard, The Arabs In History, pages 43-44)

Like I said in my previous post, the victor will often dictate the terms of surrender, and if the defeated offer some conditions to their surrender, the victor can easily reject the condition, since the victor always have the advantages.

How do we reconcile our two views?

Can you supply source(s) for your information on Taif?

 

[gnostic]

what i know gnostic that before any war the Muslim army's leader is giving choices to the other army, the first one is to surrender and so to accept Islam or to pay Jizzya the second choice is to fight and then if we are victorious the options will be who wills to convert he can do it, who doesn't want to convert he could pay Jizya against providing him protection, so the non muslim poor he doesn't need to emigrate but just Muslims will confirm he really can't pay that Jizya and so the Caliphate will exempt him from it

I don't see how that much of the choice, dynavert2012. You are still forcing people to choose one or the other, is the same as choosing between Scylla and Charybdis.

If Muhammad (and Muslims after him) was seriously magnanimous as you believe, then he would and could have not force to make such a choice.

I would rather be murdered or executed than accept a religion that I don't believe in.

Taif was no longer about self-defense or matter of survival. Muhammad simply couldn't accept that people have their own religion, but now he has to profit from non-Muslims by making them pay jizya.

If I was a victorious general, I would demand that you convert to any religion, nor would I make you pay for privilege of keeping your religion.

But with the fall of Medina, the men weren't even given the option of paying jizya. Most men were beheaded, only those who did convert were freed. And what did Muhammad do the Qurayza women and children were sold in slavery.

 

[dynavert2012]

My understanding is that they went to Muhammad with offer to surrender, but Muhammad refused to accept them UNLESS they convert to Islam and destroy their idols.

(Source: Lewis, Bernard, The Arabs In History, pages 43-44)

my source "ibn hesham biography" said they already accepted the Islam but there was some negotiaions about leaving an idol without destroying, also i searched in other book found the same but in addition they asked not to prohibit adultery, wine and money interest

How do we reconcile our two views?

i like the view of Ibn Hesham why? because he lived in the golden age of Islam and so he wasn't defensive and so if Muslims really forced them to embrace Islam, he would say it clearly, as at this time there was no orientalists that he would to justify that for them if it's true, so he wrote what he believed it actually happened.plus that after the prophet's death, the people of taif "tribe of thaqeef" didn't leave Islam as some tribes did but they kept their Islam although the chance was valid to leave it

Can you supply source(s) for your information on Taif?

the biography of the prophet for Ibn hesham , volume 4 pages 121 to 124 (Hint: this is the arabic version, i never read the english one to know the pages number)
but it says the negotiations was 3 years instead of 3 months to leave the lat idol without destroying , i told you i'm always relying on my weak memory

 

[dynavert2012]

I don't see how that much of the choice, dynavert2012. You are still forcing people to choose one or the other, is the same as choosing between Scylla and Charybdis.

If Muhammad (and Muslims after him) was seriously magnanimous as you believe, then he would and could have not force to make such a choice.

i think there's a weak point here, which is your disagreement with Jizya, but i think this is due to lack of information about the nature of Jizya

I would rather be murdered or executed than accept a religion that I don't believe in.

i greet you for that, and Islam will never force somebody to embrace what he doesn't believe in, as simply you will be a hypocrite, showing Islam and hiding disbelieve and so it won't be accepted, so it's impossible for the prophet nor his companions to do such thing.

Taif was no longer about self-defense or matter of survival. Muhammad simply couldn't accept that people have their own religion, but now he has to profit from non-Muslims by making them pay jizya.

i think i replied to the taif in the above post, about profiting from non Muslims by paying Jizya to keep their own religion, excuse me friend but this pure misinformation, first thing the Jizya isn't against keeping your religion, Jizya is against protection, Muslims had conquered a state, so what will happen? the ruling will be handed over to the Muslim leader, and so he has to prepare army to defend that new state, Muslims are paying 2.5% from their savings, some of it goes to army, so what about non Muslims who shared us the same land, they have also to pay for their protection like us, specially that according to the Islam law, the non Muslims are exempted from joining the army while we are forced and so we are defending them and so will that be for free? we are sharing the same land so we have to pay together to protect this lands, but why non Muslims are exempted from joining the army? it's mercy that current laws can't achieve, now the leader is Muslim and so he may take a decision to invade Ethiopia for example as from our point of view they are threatening Islam there, so what's the religion of people of Ethiopia ? it's Orthodox Christianity like the Egyptian copts, so if they are not exmpted from army he would be forced to kill his brother in religion for the sake of a religion he believed it's fake and false, is this humanity? surly not, this is what happening with Muslims in USA, some of them killed their brothers in religion in iraq for a crusade held by bush, no mercy indeed, and this is the difference between Islam and others, that even Islam consider all other religions are fake, but it still keeping their followers the right not to be used for our proposes
what's the value for Jizya, as i remember in Egypt it was equal 3 dollars a year for men only and who can't pay it, he will be exmpted from it, so my Christian work colleague is paying 3 dollars a year, while i pay about 1000 $ a year, so will my work colleague be forced to embrace Islam as the 3 dollars are too much for him and goes to pay 1000 $, is that a logic my friend?

But with the fall of Medina, the men weren't even given the option of paying jizya. Most men were beheaded, only those who did convert were freed. And what did Muhammad do the Qurayza women and children were sold in slavery.

hey, do you know the story of Qurayza?

 

[gnostic]

i think there's a weak point here, which is your disagreement with Jizya, but i think this is due to lack of information about the nature of Jizya

From what I understand of jizya, as it was explained to me by several Muslims, here at RF, and at another forum islam_dot_com, is that non-Muslims pay jizya, because they are excluded from military services. Male Muslims could be enlisted or recruited into the army.

In return for paying jizya, non-Muslims can practice their faith or religion, and have some legal protection within Islamic state.

I understand the reason for taxes, in general. I find it outrageous and utterly illogical that I would have to pay for freedom to worship (or not worship, in the case of atheists and agnostics). I can understand if I was to join a religion, that I can voluntarily donate some money to that religion, but not to pay tax to any Islamic state or Muslim government. Why should I pay tax or levy in a religion that I don't belong to?

And can I ask what happen to a person who refused to pay jizya? Isn't it slavery? As I understand it, not only I could face being sold into slavery, but my family too can become slave, which I see as injustice.

Muslims can't be sold into slavery even if they can't pay the zakat. But then again, zakat is seen as a charity.

Again, it is not much of choice.

(Of course, these taxes, whether it be Muslims or non-Muslims, only applied to people who properties or assets. The poor, for instance, are exempted.)

 

[dynavert2012]

From what I understand of jizya, as it was explained to me by several Muslims, here at RF, and at another forum islam_dot_com, is that non-Muslims pay jizya, because they are excluded from military services. Male Muslims could be enlisted or recruited into the army.

In return for paying jizya, non-Muslims can practice their faith or religion, and have some legal protection within Islamic state.

again i never heard before that Jizya is for your freedom to practice your religion, what i know that it's for providing protection to them against outside assault, i think this shouldn't be for free, and what emphasize that Jizya is for protection, that when Muslims failed to protect some christians villages they return the Jizya back to the Christian because we don't do the service for them, so if it's against the freedom of worship and protection we should return the half of it as we already let them worship their god.
please find the link below for more details about Jizya
Jizyah in Islam |

I understand the reason for taxes, in general. I find it outrageous and utterly illogical that I would have to pay for freedom to worship (or not worship, in the case of atheists and agnostics). I can understand if I was to join a religion, that I can voluntarily donate some money to that religion, but not to pay tax to any Islamic state or Muslim government. Why should I pay tax or levy in a religion that I don't belong to?

you are living in that state like Muslims, the Muslim army as defending Muslims also defending you, do you want he to expose his life to protect your home for free? and by your rule, i should tell the Muslim in England not to pay taxes for the government as it's Christian government will that fit with you? it doesn't fit to me at all.

And can I ask what happen to a person who refused to pay jizya? Isn't it slavery? As I understand it, not only I could face being sold into slavery, but my family too can become slave, which I see as injustice.

do you have a source about that? i never heard about something like that before, and even it doesn't make sense
if i'm a ruler and a Christian refused to pay JIZYA "a tax for protection" and i know he has the money to pay what i should do? put him in slavery? why?
if i can put him in slavery,so it's easier for me to take the taxes from him even if he refused, plus for me it's too far assumption which i never read that it happened before

Muslims can't be sold into slavery even if they can't pay the zakat. But then again, zakat is seen as a charity.

Again, it is not much of choice.

the Muslim who can't pay Zakat is exempted for it as he can't but if he refused so he would be punished as the prophet said he would be forced to pay it plus 50% of his wealth, yes this hadith isn't authentic but many scholars use it to punish who escapes from paying zakat, Zakat isn't a volunteering charity as some understood.

 

[Pastek]

Why not?

I don't know