Were the empires "Islamic"?

[gnostic]

Following the death of Muhammad, successions of empires rose and fall.

Empire building often involved wars, invasions and taking lands outside of their borders. It is often flexing their military muscles as much as political ideology.

When Muhammad went to wars against his enemies, it is claimed that they were done in "self defence". However, invading another kingdom can never be justified as "self defence". I don't think the excuses of "self-defence" were no longer plausible once you invade another kingdom.

So here are the following questions:

Is invasion of a foreign kingdom be a "religious ideology"?

Can invasion be justified as "self defence"?

Were those empires "Islamic"?

Or were those empires, purely political and military?
​

 

[gnostic]

I've never got a reply for this thread.

 

[Ingledsva]

I've never got a reply for this thread.

People probably didn't want to get into Islamic history, and related religion questions.

I will say though, that all of the religions of Abraham have used religion as an excuse to kill "other!"

And NO, it can't be justified, - but they will try nonetheless.

*

 

[dynavert2012]

it's not simple as you think it needs books to be understood as for example the conquest of Egypt and Spain was for reasons different than the reasons of the conquest of Persians

 

[Assad91]

Not everything self-named Islamic, is truly Islamic.

 

[gnostic]

it's not simple as you think it needs books to be understood as for example the conquest of Egypt and Spain was for reasons different than the reasons of the conquest of Persians

What reasons were those?

As far as I know of Byzantine Empire, they had weakened the Persians after years before the Arabs arrived. The Arabs took advantage of the state that Persia found itself in, and were able to put up much of resistance.

Like any other empire before and after the arrival of Islam, empires were built upon expansion policy, ie conquests (of both military and political), and the Islamic Arab Empire were no different to earlier empires before them.

Not long after Muhammad's death, the Arabs first hit Syria. That wasn't an act of self defence.

 

[dynavert2012]

well the war against the Byzantine empire began during the prophet's life not after his death as you mentioned, search for the battle of Tabuk and the reason was firstly that they killed his ambassador to them and decide to attack Muslims, this then evolved to include Syria after the death of the prophet.

about Egypt, it was for two issues, the first one is to protect Syria and Palestine from the Byzantine army in Egypt, second one there were calls from Egyptian to the Muslims to save them from the sovereignty of east Romans as they were obligating them to pay too much taxes and was stealing their wheat and sent it to Europe

i'm Egyptian and i think i know my state's history well, and if you read you will find that the Coptic popes welcomed Muslims too much as Muslims return them back to their churches after they had been expelled by the east Romans

 

[gnostic]

well the war against the Byzantine empire began during the prophet's life not after his death as you mentioned, search for the battle of Tabuk and the reason was firstly that they killed his ambassador to them and decide to attack Muslims, this then evolved to include Syria after the death of the prophet.

Wait one second...isn't this Battle of Tabuk, not a battle? As far as I can recall, there were no armed conflict with Byzantine army that were never there. From what I understand, historians speak of rumors of sizable Byzantine army coming to Tabuk to attack Muslims, but there were no Byzantine army, and yet Muhammad took credit for a victory didn't happen, or see it as Byzantine hostility to attack Byzantine territory.

And this is the reason that they attack Syria?

Then that mean this punitive attack on Byzantine Syria was nothing than Byzantine hostility or slight that didn't happen in Muhammad's lifetime.

Have you ever heard of the phrase, "History is written by the victors"?

There are always two or more sides to every wars, and the only sources to this "battle" come from Muslims, and some reasons for such a battle, sources were invented quite later, like this Muslim ambassador killed. Much of Byzantine hostilities to Muslims were based on rumors and exaggeration of Byzantine army.

This battle of Tabuk is nothing more than propaganda, so that Muslims can attack imaginary enemy with imaginary hostilities, so that Muslims can have their war.

 

[Pastek]

Arabs after the death of Muhammad wanted to bring the faith to other people.

So what you say is true, it was not for self-defense.

 

[gnostic]

Arabs after the death of Muhammad wanted to bring the faith to other people.

So what you say is true, it was not for self-defense.

I actually don't find anything wrong with empires, because they are usually the most interesting parts of history.

An empire usually spread beyond the borders of their homeland through wars, invasions, conquests and battles. It not just grab for lands or wealth, though they are contributing factors for why an empire being built. Other factors could be trades, and of course, faith.

If the emperor or other forms of centralized government (ancient Athenian empire was not rule by one man or it's dynasty, and Rome began its empire as a republic before Augustus), there can be some positive outcome from such empire: law and order, education, language, art and science, etc.

Of course, there can be negative effects, like oppressive rules, corruptions, poverty, etc.

I think that people should recognize that there are both positive and negative aspects to any empire.

And the Islamic empires are no different to all other empires that come before, during and after the Islamic empires.

Some Muslims become defensive about how the empires came to be. Some don't like to recognize the negative aspects. Some refused to see that their empires spread through wars and conquests.

For instance, some believe that the Islamic empires had only spread through "self defence", and only attack when attack first. That is only partly true, but it no longer become self defence, when they continue to grow through force of arms. It no longer become self defence, but the defence of its empire and it's self-interests.

 

[Pastek]

Some Muslims become defensive about how the empires came to be. Some don't like to recognize the negative aspects. Some refused to see that their empires spread through wars and conquests.

For instance, some believe that the Islamic empires had only spread through "self defence", and only attack when attack first. That is only partly true, but it no longer become self defence, when they continue to grow through force of arms. It no longer become self defence, but the defence of its empire and it's self-interests.

It's complicated if you ask the question to arabs or arabized people because we see it more like a good thing. For us, we see it as something positive.

I'm from north africa, so my ancestors were probably berbers arabized but today the majority of us are happy that arab muslims came until there.
For us they came because they were courageous and didn't stay comfortably in their houses after the Prophet died. But for the people of that time or non muslims north africans of today they may seen it as only a conquest/invasion.

 

[gnostic]

It's complicated if you ask the question to arabs or arabized people because we see it more like a good thing. For us, we see it as something positive.

I'm from north africa, so my ancestors were probably berbers arabized but today the majority of us are happy that arab muslims came until there.
For us they came because they were courageous and didn't stay comfortably in their houses after the Prophet died. But for the people of that time or non muslims north africans of today they may seen it as only a conquest/invasion.

Like I said earlier, both positive and negative aspects of any empire should be recognized. And it is part of history, and people shouldn't be ashamed of what have become part of their history.

But what make the Islamic empires "Islamic"?

Is it "Islamic" because Islam has become a state religion in the empires?

Does the Qur'an say to spread through empire?

Or through battle, in which the victor dictated the terms of surrender, like "convert"?

 

[Aquitaine]

Personally, I think it's a little naive to think that any Empire can spread through "peaceful means" or via "self defense".

Empires are about power, influence and control, whether they're Islamic or not.

 

[gnostic]

Personally, I think it's a little naive to think that any Empire can spread through "peaceful means" or via "self defense".

Empires are about power, influence and control, whether they're Islamic or not.

Agreed. I don't see how that's possible as well.

 

[dynavert2012]

Have you ever heard of the phrase, "History is written by the victors"?

There are always two or more sides to every wars, and the only sources to this "battle" come from Muslims, and some reasons for such a battle, sources were invented quite later, like this Muslim ambassador killed. Much of Byzantine hostilities to Muslims were based on rumors and exaggeration of Byzantine army.

This battle of Tabuk is nothing more than propaganda, so that Muslims can attack imaginary enemy with imaginary hostilities, so that Muslims can have their war.

as you already have your justifications for not listening to any answer rather than what's in your mind, so what would be the gain of a discussion?

 

[Pastek]

But what make the Islamic empires "Islamic"?

Is it "Islamic" because Islam has become a state religion in the empires?

Yes.

Does the Qur'an say to spread through empire?

It was the decision of the followers. For what i know, the prophet Muhammad didn't asked them to do it.
They didn't do it for money or power, it was guided by the faith.
At last for the first believers.

Or through battle, in which the victor dictated the terms of surrender, like "convert"?

They didn't forced people to convert, in fact it took many centuries .
I'm talking here about the Maghreb not Egypt.
And like you know there's much more christians in the Middle-east than in the Maghreb. Islam in the Maghreb wasn't seen as a new religion, it was seen as a christian heresy.
The "problem" for them wasn't really the religion, but more the arabs.

 

[Pastek]

as you already have your justifications for not listening to any answer rather than what's in your mind, so what would be the gain of a discussion?

This is the debate section, it's not the islamic DIR. So he just gave his opinion, it doesn't mean he doesn't listen to you.

about Egypt, it was for two issues, the first one is to protect Syria and Palestine from the Byzantine army in Egypt, second one there were calls from Egyptian to the Muslims to save them from the sovereignty of east Romans as they were obligating them to pay too much taxes and was stealing their wheat and sent it to Europe

i'm Egyptian and i think i know my state's history well, and if you read you will find that the Coptic popes welcomed Muslims too much as Muslims return them back to their churches after they had been expelled by the east Romans

I don't know that much about it, please explain to us concerning Egypt

 

[dynavert2012]

This is the debate section, it's not the islamic DIR. So he just gave his opinion, it doesn't mean he doesn't listen to you.

maybe you are right, just his words shock me as i see then the discussion is useless as he already formed his opinions

I don't know that much about it, please explain to us concerning Egypt

you can find the answer in the first 7 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t4w73_RNxE
it includes some mistakes like saying that the Byzantines were an eastern catholic empire

 

[gnostic]

as you already have your justifications for not listening to any answer rather than what's in your mind, so what would be the gain of a discussion?

The opinion of mine, is only regarding to the sources about the Battle of Tabuk. And only to Tabuk.

That the only sources come from Muslims, without any other independent sources, make me very suspicious of the event.

And what is propaganda is that historians would take credit for battle that was never fought, since there was no enemy army there. Seriously, this can't even be called a "battle"?

If I've offended you, then I'm sorry. But you can't believe every historians write or say, whether they be Muslims or non-Muslims. History needed to be verified by more than one source. And in warfare, whether they be ancient, medieval or modern, there are always more than one side to every battle.

Also, if you really wanted provided me a reason why Arabs invaded Syria after the prophet's death, then the Battle of Tabuk is the poor choice or example that you could have given me. It would have been far better if you said the Battle of Mu'tah in 629 CE, where an actual battle took place with the Byzantine army; that would have more appropriate example or reason why Syria was invaded.

Do understand what I am saying?

 

[dynavert2012]

The opinion of mine, is only regarding to the sources about the Battle of Tabuk. And only to Tabuk.

That the only sources come from Muslims, without any other independent sources, make me very suspicious of the event.

And what is propaganda is that historians would take credit for battle that was never fought, since there was no enemy army there. Seriously, this can't even be called a "battle"?

If I've offended you, then I'm sorry. But you can't believe every historians write or say, whether they be Muslims or non-Muslims. History needed to be verified by more than one source. And in warfare, whether they be ancient, medieval or modern, there are always more than one side to every battle.

Also, if you really wanted provided me a reason why Arabs invaded Syria after the prophet's death, then the Battle of Tabuk is the poor choice or example that you could have given me. It would have been far better if you said the Battle of Mu'tah in 629 CE, where an actual battle took place with the Byzantine army; that would have more appropriate example or reason why Syria was invaded.

Do understand what I am saying?

yes i got you, you don't need to apologize, i don't feel offensive.
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

about the reason it's my mistake as i relied on my memory and that leads to replace Mu'ta by Tabuk as a reason of conquering Syria but you are right it's Mu'ta as was after the killing of the prophet's ambassador in busra but alsi the indian historian mubarkfoury say it's also a reason for the marching to tabuk.