as I said it was peaceful because of the intention.
Doesn't it strike you as a peculiar notion that sending in an army, armed to the teeth and ready to fight, could be viewed as a peaceful intention? For example, Muslim forces were not like the UN Peacekeeping forces of their day sent in between two or more fighting groups
Often times when people do invasions of some sort, history has shown that generally the people invading are doing it to usurp the wealth and resources of the people where often times the invading people are forced to accept whatever is given to them.
And here, Muslim armies almost wrote the book on the subject. Heck, there is even a chapter of the Qur'an devoted to the Spoils of war. Islam must have been very attractive to many a young psychopath in that they could murder, rape and pillage and still get the highest rewards for entertaining themselves.
The authority they had is removed and generally the poor weak and disenfranchised are exterminated and the people are put under extreme oppression.
And being faced with the choice of accepting Islam, accepting dhimmitude or accepting death is not extreme oppression?
Now in terms of Islam the invasion into other territorities as people like to refer to it as is not to take the wealth of the people but to spread islam and then give the people the abiltity to govern themselves.
That is hardly accurate, Mujahid Mohammed. If it was accurate then why did Allah feel compelled to devote an entire chapter on the spoils of war, unlike in the texts of any other religion? Obviously there was a great deal of pillaging going on by the Muslim forces.
Now as the Quran teaches us it is often the elite of the society who are often times using their position and power to keep people under the oppression that man's word often brings. The religion of Allah is just and it is the responsibility of the muslims to spread that.
Yes, that makes sense, enforcing belief in your invisible friend on weaker rivals. Given the alternatives they faced it is little surprise that so many opted to convert to Islam.
when the treaty of Hudabiyah was in effect the Prophet peace and blessings be upon him sent letters out to the leaders of the words. All received them well, and insha Allah I will post one in particular when the letter was sent to Heraclius. But anyways Kisra the leader of Persia, ridiculed the Messeger spit on the letter and tore it in half. This was to say the least a huge disrespect. and in those days when leaders did that to one another often times it was looked at as a declaration of war.
One could also say that Muhammad's letter was in fact the opening salvo of the war given that he could probably have surmised how his overtures would be taken.
For example, if I know fairly well how you will react to a given idea, and then I send you that idea with the express sentiment that you should accept the idea, I can be confident that you will likely vehemently reject my overture. It would be fairly disengenuous for me to use your reaction as a pretext for sending in my forces to subdue you as it was my letter that caused your reaction, being the thinly veiled threat that it was.
In this way, it is not the Persians who started it. Their reactions was fairly predictable and to use that reaction as the pretext for going to war is utterly and completely laughable. It's hard to believe you (and other Muslims) are actually serious in suggesting that Muhammad's letter is not the original cause.
I hope that this example is clear enough.
Now let us look at the state of the Persian empire. In it you would find many parallels of Rome. The elite oppressing the massess. Using their power and position to go out and plunder and exploit.
And Muslim armies are different how exactly?
So the army was sent because of Kisra's unwillingness to even discuss anything with the Messenger of Allah.
But given the nature of the "invitation" just what exactly was there to discuss? Terms of surrender?
the justice and righteousness of Islam was brought and Kisra was to either accept the rule of Allah and reject his oppression and tyranny he brought or he had to be removed by force. Cause he himself wasn't going to give it up.
So much for the "no compulsion in religion" clause, eh?
It is impossible to always resort every matter in a peaceful way for as Allah says there are some people who will cause corruption and mischief in the earth. And if no one stops them every masjid, church and synagogue where Allah name is mentioned will be destroyed. Tyrants and oppressors never lay down easily. They always put up fights and they do it not to spread justice or peace.
Well, if one looks at the present day one can hardly say that Islam is a bastion of peace and good will to all humanity. Islam is the only religion that requires all other religious instituations on their captured lands to apply for permission to rebuild or refurbish old structures. Usually that permission is very slow in being granted or is simply refused.
Or a more righteous way of life it is always to benefit their own desires and needs.
I find this term "a more righteous way of life" to be troubling. Do I get a choice to reject it without having an army sent my way to convince me of the error of my thinking?
