is the religion of peace really the religion of war

kai said:

No i am not, i am telling you that the Muslims did not conquer and control Spain for 800 years.
They were at war in the Iberian Peninsular for an 800 year period
and there was a force on earth that stopped them, they eventually lost all their gains in Hispania.They reached a peak like all Empires and it finally died with the Ottomans.

Click to expand...

Response: It is a common known fact that the muslims ruled for 800 years. Who told you otherwise and where is the evidence to the contrary? Where is the source of evidence who told you differently and how long did they rule. What source?

Fatihah said:

Response: It is a common known fact that the muslims ruled for 800 years. Who told you otherwise and where is the evidence to the contrary? Where is the source of evidence who told you differently and how long did they rule. What source?

Click to expand...

I am afraid its common held beleif that Muslims hold when in fact the reconquista took hundreds of years .

Reconquista (Iberian history) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia



Timeline of the Reconquista - Timeline Index

The Reconquest.

718: Pelayo, a noble Visigoth who has been elected king, defeats the Muslim Army in Alcama in the neighbourhood of Covadonga, thus beginning the Christian Reconquest of Spain.

750: The Christians, under Alfonso I, occupy Galicia, which had been abandoned by revolting Berber troops.

778: The army of Charlemagne suffers the defeat of Roncesvalles at the hands of the Vascons; death of Roland.

791 to 842: Alfonso II conquers a number of strongholds and settles the lands south of the river Duero.

873 to 898: Wilfredo the Hairy, Count of Barcelona, sets up a Christian kingdom with a certain degree of independence from the Frankish kings.

905 to 926: Sancho I Garces creates a Basque kingdom centred on Navarre.

930 to 950: Ramiro II, king of Leon, defeats Abd al-Rahman III at Simancas, Osma and Talavera.

950 to 951: Count Fernan Gonzalez lays the foundations for the independence of Castile.

981: Ramiro III is defeated by Almansur at Rueda and is obliged to pay tribute to the Caliph of Cordova.

999 to 1018: Alfonso V of Leon reconstructs his kingdoms.

1000 to 1033: Sancho III of Navarre subdues the counties of Aragon, Sobrarbe and Ribagorza, takes possession of the County of Castile and makes an arrangement with Bermudo III of Leon with the idea of taking away his dominions from him and proclaiming himself as emperor. However, on his death, he leaves Navarre to his son Garcia III, Castile to Fernando I, and Aragon, Sobrarbe and Ribagorza to Ramiro I.

1035 to 1063: Fernando I conquers Coimbra and obliges the Muslims of Toledo, Seville and Badajoz to pay him tribute. Before his death, he shares out his territories between his sons: Castile goes to Sancho II and Leon to Alfonso VI.

1065 to 1109: Alfonso VI unites the two kingdoms under his sceptre and takes Toledo.

1086: The Christian advance ogliges the Muslim kings of Granada, Seville and Badajoz to call to their aid the Almoravides.

1102: The followers of the Cid leave Valencia and the African Muslims occupy the Peninsula as far as Saragossa (Zaragoza).

1118: Alfonso I of Aragon conquers Saragossa.

1135: Alfonso VII of Leon restores the prestige of the Leonese monarchy and is proclaimed emperor.

1151: The Almohades, another African dynasty who have displaced the Almoravides, retake Almaria.

1162: Alfonso II, son of Petronila and Ramon Berenguer IV, unites in his person the kingdom of Aragon and the County of Barcelona.

1195: The Almohades defeat the Castilians at Alarcos.

1212: Culmination of the Reconquest. Alfonso VIII of Castile, helped by Sancho VIII of Navarre, Pedro II of Aragon and some troops from Portugal and Leon, is victorious in the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa.

1229: Jaime I of Aragon, the Conqueror, reconquers Marllorca.

1230: Alfonso IX of Leon advances along the River Guadiana, takes Merida and Badajoz and opens up the way for the conquest of Seville.

1217 to 1252: Fernando III, king of Castile and Leon, conquers Cordova, Murcia, Jaen and Seville. Granada remains as the sole independent Muslim kingdom.

1252 to 1284: Alfonso X the Wise continues the reconquest and is obliged to face the 'Mudejar' revolts of Andalusia and Murcia. He seeks election as emperor of the Holy Roman Empire in 1257. Alfonso X drafts the 'Fuero de las Leyes', the forerunner of the 'Siete Partidas'.

1284: An assembly of nobles, prelates and citizens depose Alfonso X and hand over power to his son Sancho IV.

1309: Fernando IV takes Gibraltar.

1312 to 1350: Alfonso XI fights the kingdom of Granada for 25 years and in 1340 wins the battle of Rio Salado.

1369: Pedro I the Cruel is murdered in Montiel by his half brother Enrique de Trastamara, who then governs as Enrique II.

1385: The Portuguese defeat the Castilians in Aljubarrota.

1464: Enrique IV of Castile names as heir to the throne his sister, the future Isabel I, the Catholic, and disinherits his daughter Juana, nicknamed 'La Beltraneja'.

1469: Isabel I of Castile and Fernando II of Aragon are married, thus cunsummating the unity of Spain.

1492: The Catholic Monarchs, Isabel and Fernando, complete the Reconquest by taking Granada (January 2nd), taking advantage of the rivalry of the last Muslim governors of Spain. Discovery of America (October 12th).

The Reconquest.



forgive the long post, what i am interested in is your source

[QUOTE:kai]I am afraid its common held beleif that Muslims hold when in fact the reconquista took hundreds of years .

Reconquista (Iberian history) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia



Timeline of the Reconquista - Timeline Index

The Reconquest.

718: Pelayo, a noble Visigoth who has been elected king, defeats the Muslim Army in Alcama in the neighbourhood of Covadonga, thus beginning the Christian Reconquest of Spain.

750: The Christians, under Alfonso I, occupy Galicia, which had been abandoned by revolting Berber troops.

778: The army of Charlemagne suffers the defeat of Roncesvalles at the hands of the Vascons; death of Roland.

791 to 842: Alfonso II conquers a number of strongholds and settles the lands south of the river Duero.

873 to 898: Wilfredo the Hairy, Count of Barcelona, sets up a Christian kingdom with a certain degree of independence from the Frankish kings.

905 to 926: Sancho I Garces creates a Basque kingdom centred on Navarre.

930 to 950: Ramiro II, king of Leon, defeats Abd al-Rahman III at Simancas, Osma and Talavera.

950 to 951: Count Fernan Gonzalez lays the foundations for the independence of Castile.

981: Ramiro III is defeated by Almansur at Rueda and is obliged to pay tribute to the Caliph of Cordova.

999 to 1018: Alfonso V of Leon reconstructs his kingdoms.

1000 to 1033: Sancho III of Navarre subdues the counties of Aragon, Sobrarbe and Ribagorza, takes possession of the County of Castile and makes an arrangement with Bermudo III of Leon with the idea of taking away his dominions from him and proclaiming himself as emperor. However, on his death, he leaves Navarre to his son Garcia III, Castile to Fernando I, and Aragon, Sobrarbe and Ribagorza to Ramiro I.

1035 to 1063: Fernando I conquers Coimbra and obliges the Muslims of Toledo, Seville and Badajoz to pay him tribute. Before his death, he shares out his territories between his sons: Castile goes to Sancho II and Leon to Alfonso VI.

1065 to 1109: Alfonso VI unites the two kingdoms under his sceptre and takes Toledo.

1086: The Christian advance ogliges the Muslim kings of Granada, Seville and Badajoz to call to their aid the Almoravides.

1102: The followers of the Cid leave Valencia and the African Muslims occupy the Peninsula as far as Saragossa (Zaragoza).

1118: Alfonso I of Aragon conquers Saragossa.

1135: Alfonso VII of Leon restores the prestige of the Leonese monarchy and is proclaimed emperor.

1151: The Almohades, another African dynasty who have displaced the Almoravides, retake Almaria.

1162: Alfonso II, son of Petronila and Ramon Berenguer IV, unites in his person the kingdom of Aragon and the County of Barcelona.

1195: The Almohades defeat the Castilians at Alarcos.

1212: Culmination of the Reconquest. Alfonso VIII of Castile, helped by Sancho VIII of Navarre, Pedro II of Aragon and some troops from Portugal and Leon, is victorious in the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa.

1229: Jaime I of Aragon, the Conqueror, reconquers Marllorca.

1230: Alfonso IX of Leon advances along the River Guadiana, takes Merida and Badajoz and opens up the way for the conquest of Seville.

1217 to 1252: Fernando III, king of Castile and Leon, conquers Cordova, Murcia, Jaen and Seville. Granada remains as the sole independent Muslim kingdom.

1252 to 1284: Alfonso X the Wise continues the reconquest and is obliged to face the 'Mudejar' revolts of Andalusia and Murcia. He seeks election as emperor of the Holy Roman Empire in 1257. Alfonso X drafts the 'Fuero de las Leyes', the forerunner of the 'Siete Partidas'.

1284: An assembly of nobles, prelates and citizens depose Alfonso X and hand over power to his son Sancho IV.

1309: Fernando IV takes Gibraltar.

1312 to 1350: Alfonso XI fights the kingdom of Granada for 25 years and in 1340 wins the battle of Rio Salado.

1369: Pedro I the Cruel is murdered in Montiel by his half brother Enrique de Trastamara, who then governs as Enrique II.

1385: The Portuguese defeat the Castilians in Aljubarrota.

1464: Enrique IV of Castile names as heir to the throne his sister, the future Isabel I, the Catholic, and disinherits his daughter Juana, nicknamed 'La Beltraneja'.

1469: Isabel I of Castile and Fernando II of Aragon are married, thus cunsummating the unity of Spain.

1492: The Catholic Monarchs, Isabel and Fernando, complete the Reconquest by taking Granada (January 2nd), taking advantage of the rivalry of the last Muslim governors of Spain. Discovery of America (October 12th).

The Reconquest.

Response: You've given a timeline but unfortunately it doesn't support your claim but does the exact opposite. Throughout the whole timeline, we don't see that the muslims have lost control of Spain until 1492. Your timeline starts at 750 AD. You do the math. That's 800+ years of muslim rule in Spain as I said. Surely you show victories of the non-muslims but it isn't until 1492 that the muslim empire was defeated. That goes to show that that the muslims must have retaliated and won after their losses and you have conveniently left those victories out. Like the victory of Yusuf bin Tashfin in 1086 over King Alfonso or the 27 year rule of Mutayyah Billah that ended in 1006 after his death. By the way, what empire are these people from? You still haven't mentioned it. And it is the oddest thing in your post. You are demonstrationg 800 years of muslims being defeated and losing their land, not the other way around. So based on your own words, who in fact is fixed on imperialism? And yet the issue at hand is seeming to be sidestepped. The question is whether islam is a religion of peace or war. In order to know so, you also have to examine the other side. Amazingly, we are over 200 posts in the thread and not once have you addressed the other side and questioned their reasons. You do know for a fact that the same people who conquered Spain are the same ruthless people who started to trade people from Africa to Europe and the America's as slaves for the next 400 years. These are the same people who claimed they discovered America and massacred the natives there in order to establish their rule. This is a clear act of imperialism. Christopher Columbus purposely set sail to do just that!! So how do you start a thread as to whether islam is a religion of peace or war and not hold into account the type of enemies they were facing, especially since we're dealing with Spain? With all this evidence, are you saying that the europeans and christians never were the agressors? If so, where is the time line and incidents of those actions. If we're being fair to both sides, you should have no problem doing the same for the other side.

Quote: Kai
forgive the long post, what i am interested in is your source(end quote)

Response: As I said before, my evidence is coming from literature at home. Everything is not on the internet and most that is on the internet is one-sided. However, producing sources does not make the source true. As I said before, we need to be open minded and examine whatever source their is and find out whether it's true as I have done above. From this, we can see from your own source and argument, that the claim of islam being a religion of war is the exact opposite. Your own evidence is showing who the agressors are and who is acting on ruthlessness and imperialism, and it wasn't islam.

kai said:

not if you were a Catholic

Click to expand...

true enough, but i think the Catholics had plenty of places to go. the Jews and non-catholic christians had where else to go?

Fatihah you are missing one important point what i have shown you is the RECONQUESTA thats 800 years of struggle for the Spanish and Portugese to reclaim their own lands from the Muslims.

Al-Andalus (Arabic: الأندلس&#8206 was the Arabic name given to the parts of the Iberian Peninsula and Septimania governed by Arab and North African Muslims (given the generic name of Moors), at various times in the period between 711 and 1492.[1][2][3]
Following the conquest, al-Andalus was divided into five administrative areas roughly corresponding to Andalusia, Galicia and Lusitania, Castile and Léon, Aragon and Catalonia, and Septimania[4]. As a political domain or domains, it successively constituted a province of the Umayyad Caliphate, initiated by the Caliph Al-Walid I (711-750); the Emirate of Córdoba (c. 750-929); the Caliphate of Córdoba (929-1031); and the Caliphate of Córdoba's taifa (successor) kingdoms.
In succeeding centuries, al-Andalus became a province of the Arab-Berber dynasties of the Almoravids and Almohads, subsequently fragmenting into a number of minor states, most notably the Emirate of Granada. For large parts of its history, particularly under the Caliphate of Córdoba, Andalus was a beacon of learning, and the city of Córdoba became one of the leading cultural and economic centres in both the Mediterranean basin and the Islamic world.
For much of its history, Al-Andalus existed in conflict with Christian kingdoms to the north. In 1085 Alfonso VI of Castile captured Toledo, precipitating a gradual decline until, by 1236, with the fall of Córdoba, the Kingdom of Granada remained the only Muslim–ruled territory in what is now Spain. The Portuguese Reconquista culminated in 1249 with the conquest of the Algarve by Afonso III. In 1238, Granada officially became a tributary state to the Kingdom of Castile, then ruled by Ferdinand III. On January 2, 1492, Muhammad XII of Granada surrendered complete control of Granada to Ferdinand and Isabella, Los Reyes Católicos, "The Catholic Monarchs".

Al-Andalus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I am still waiting for someone to post the OTHER side as you call it. as we can see there was never 800 years of peace, unless you have more information for me?

kai said:

Fatihah you are missing one important point what i have shown you is the RECONQUESTA thats 800 years of struggle for the Spanish and Portugese to reclaim their own lands from the Muslims.

Al-Andalus (Arabic: الأندلس&#8206 was the Arabic name given to the parts of the Iberian Peninsula and Septimania governed by Arab and North African Muslims (given the generic name of Moors), at various times in the period between 711 and 1492.[1][2][3]
Following the conquest, al-Andalus was divided into five administrative areas roughly corresponding to Andalusia, Galicia and Lusitania, Castile and Léon, Aragon and Catalonia, and Septimania[4]. As a political domain or domains, it successively constituted a province of the Umayyad Caliphate, initiated by the Caliph Al-Walid I (711-750); the Emirate of Córdoba (c. 750-929); the Caliphate of Córdoba (929-1031); and the Caliphate of Córdoba's taifa (successor) kingdoms.
In succeeding centuries, al-Andalus became a province of the Arab-Berber dynasties of the Almoravids and Almohads, subsequently fragmenting into a number of minor states, most notably the Emirate of Granada. For large parts of its history, particularly under the Caliphate of Córdoba, Andalus was a beacon of learning, and the city of Córdoba became one of the leading cultural and economic centres in both the Mediterranean basin and the Islamic world.
For much of its history, Al-Andalus existed in conflict with Christian kingdoms to the north. In 1085 Alfonso VI of Castile captured Toledo, precipitating a gradual decline until, by 1236, with the fall of Córdoba, the Kingdom of Granada remained the only Muslim–ruled territory in what is now Spain. The Portuguese Reconquista culminated in 1249 with the conquest of the Algarve by Afonso III. In 1238, Granada officially became a tributary state to the Kingdom of Castile, then ruled by Ferdinand III. On January 2, 1492, Muhammad XII of Granada surrendered complete control of Granada to Ferdinand and Isabella, Los Reyes Católicos, "The Catholic Monarchs".

Al-Andalus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I am still waiting for someone to post the OTHER side as you call it. as we can see there was never 800 years of peace, unless you have more information for me?

Click to expand...

Fatihah dosent trust the Encyclopedia Britannica, you think he's going to trust wikipedia?

JMorris said:

Fatihah dosent trust the Encyclopedia Britannica, you think he's going to trust wikipedia?

Click to expand...

well then all i am asking for is an Islamic source that explains the peaceful nature of it all? This idea of a peaceful expansion ? where does it come from? he is now saying that it was the spanish who were Imperialists to reconquer their own lands.I think Tashan came to the conclusion that Muslims had the right to be there by right of conquest which is fine by me, but by that yardstick the Spanish/Portugese had the same right but PEACEFUL?

kai said:

well then all i am asking for is an Islamic source that explains the peaceful nature of it all? he is now saying that it was the spanish who were Imperialists to reconquer their own lands.

Click to expand...

lol. i dont know why people cant just honest about history. i wouldnt hold my breath waiting on sources from Fatihah tho..........

kai said:

Fatihah you are missing one important point what i have shown you is the RECONQUESTA thats 800 years of struggle for the Spanish and Portugese to reclaim their own lands from the Muslims.

Al-Andalus (Arabic: 'D#F/D3) was the Arabic name given to the parts of the Iberian Peninsula and Septimania governed by Arab and North African Muslims (given the generic name of Moors), at various times in the period between 711 and 1492.[1][2][3]
Following the conquest, al-Andalus was divided into five administrative areas roughly corresponding to Andalusia, Galicia and Lusitania, Castile and Léon, Aragon and Catalonia, and Septimania[4]. As a political domain or domains, it successively constituted a province of the Umayyad Caliphate, initiated by the Caliph Al-Walid I (711-750); the Emirate of Córdoba (c. 750-929); the Caliphate of Córdoba (929-1031); and the Caliphate of Córdoba's taifa (successor) kingdoms.
In succeeding centuries, al-Andalus became a province of the Arab-Berber dynasties of the Almoravids and Almohads, subsequently fragmenting into a number of minor states, most notably the Emirate of Granada. For large parts of its history, particularly under the Caliphate of Córdoba, Andalus was a beacon of learning, and the city of Córdoba became one of the leading cultural and economic centres in both the Mediterranean basin and the Islamic world.
For much of its history, Al-Andalus existed in conflict with Christian kingdoms to the north. In 1085 Alfonso VI of Castile captured Toledo, precipitating a gradual decline until, by 1236, with the fall of Córdoba, the Kingdom of Granada remained the only Muslim–ruled territory in what is now Spain. The Portuguese Reconquista culminated in 1249 with the conquest of the Algarve by Afonso III. In 1238, Granada officially became a tributary state to the Kingdom of Castile, then ruled by Ferdinand III. On January 2, 1492, Muhammad XII of Granada surrendered complete control of Granada to Ferdinand and Isabella, Los Reyes Católicos, "The Catholic Monarchs".

Al-Andalus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I am still waiting for someone to post the OTHER side as you call it. as we can see there was never 800 years of peace, unless you have more information for me?

Click to expand...

Response: I think you have missed the point my friend. I raised many points and questions in post 203 which you never adressed. I also explained in post 190 of page 19 as to what I meant by peace.

Fatihah said:

Response: I think you have missed the point my friend. I raised many points and questions in post 203 which you never adressed. I also explained in post 190 of page 19 as to what I meant by peace.

Click to expand...

let me address some of those points:

Response: You've given a timeline but unfortunately it doesn't support your claim but does the exact opposite. Throughout the whole timeline, we don't see that the muslims have lost control of Spain until 1492. Your timeline starts at 750 AD. You do the math. That's 800+ years of muslim rule in Spain as I said.

Spain is a whole country, Toledo fell by 1064 and By 1252 only the Emirate Granada remained and that was lost in 1492 what we have is 800 years of a Muslim presence in the Iberian peninsular

Surely you show victories of the non-muslims but it isn't until 1492 that the muslim empire was defeated. That goes to show that that the muslims must have retaliated and won after their losses and you have conveniently left those victories out. Like the victory of Yusuf bin Tashfin in 1086 over King Alfonso or the 27 year rule of Mutayyah Billah that ended in 1006 after his death. By the way, what empire are these people from? You still haven't mentioned it. And it is the oddest thing in your post. You are demonstrationg 800 years of muslims being defeated and losing their land, not the other way around. So based on your own words, who in fact is fixed on imperialism? And yet the issue at hand is seeming to be sidestepped. The question is whether islam is a religion of peace or war. In order to know so, you also have to examine the other side. Amazingly, we are over 200 posts in the thread and not once have you addressed the other side and questioned their reasons.

You said they ruled Spain for 800 years in peace , i said they never ruled all of Spain and it wasnt 800 years of peace.


You do know for a fact that the same people who conquered Spain are the same ruthless people who started to trade people from Africa to Europe and the America's as slaves for the next 400 years.

Oh yes everyone had slaves back then ,including the Arabs.


These are the same people who claimed they discovered America and massacred the natives there in order to establish their rule. This is a clear act of imperialism.Yes it is


Christopher Columbus purposely set sail to do just that!! So how do you start a thread as to whether islam is a religion of peace or war and not hold into account the type of enemies they were facing, especially since we're dealing with Spain? Because its about the Muslim empires not Spain , Spain is only one of many countries that were occupied by Muslims



With all this evidence, are you saying that the europeans and christians never were the agressors? If so, where is the time line and incidents of those actions. If we're being fair to both sides, you should have no problem doing the same for the other side.

OH no thats not what i am saying at all, i am saying that the Muslim Expansion from Arabia was not peaceful but imperialistic.Sure there have been other Empires and i would very much like to discuss the later Spanish one , but this thread is about the Islamic ones.




Your response from page 19Response: You're right. I rephrased it wrong. What I meant was that it was 800 years of them wanting peace with their neighbors and not imperialism.


yes i find this a very strange answer , that the Muslims can invade Hispania and then claim victim status over the Reconquista,as i have already said its history versus Ahistory i am interested in







Please see other threads that deal with Spain

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/historical-debates/71182-spain-al-andalus.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...quistadors-christian-catholic-just-white.html

kai said:

if i may just comment ,i know your response was for not4me.


History is written by men, its written by the conquerors and the conquered. each have a perspective. now events may be facts but History ,that is written history always has a perspective.

Take first hand accounts or eye witness statements of the Battle of Tours, you would have a Frankish chronicler writing how god was on his side that day for victory, and you would have a Islamic chronicler writing of the calamity of the day , each would have a perspective.

You can gleen a hint of perspective by the titles used in the history of that battle, for example Charles Martel is called "the Hammer" by Frankish Historians Islamic sources call the the battle itself "Battle of Court of The Martyrs"

Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying but that is something generally the laymen discuss, but not the scholars or students of knowlede. The true historian sifts through the bias statements and looks at the facts.

Because the scholar of history is not trying to establish perspective but just what happened.

whether or not God was on the their side or not is irrelevant from a historian's standpoint. Now one can argue whether or not they were or not but it would be based on whether you agree with whatever thing happened to get them to that point.

Take Spain! to Muslims it was a golden age of Al -Andalus and they look back on that period with nostalgia,However to the Visigoths etc it was an occupation by foreigners and the Recoquista is celebrated on january 2nd with a holiday. surely two different perspectives of one actual period of history?

Click to expand...

As I said the laymen look back on it as a period of nostalgia. But the muslim scholars look at this era as a time when the muslims were on the downward spiral because all the success of the world they got from taking over spain brought them closer to it and seperated them from the Creator. All those big buildings, great institutions, massive wealth caused corruption in the hearts of the muslims. this is why they eventually lost because in attaining all this worldly stuff they left the sunnah of the Messenger and his Sahaba and especially the righteous caliphs. they became unjust, corrupt, greedy and deviant.

People who don't have knowledge look at the muslim times when the muslims had the most money, the most land space and all the power as these great era's in Islam. And yes in a wordly sense what they achieved was great. But what the Prophet and the Sahaba did was lay the groundwork for the future the they did it by having the deepest knowledge of the Quran, the most pious hearts and being the least superficial. We lost that...

As I said before the thing the Prophet was most feared about and said in many hadith that he doesn't fear poverty for his people but wealth. for he knew it is one of the biggest gateways for Shaiton to take over.

The best people was in the time of the Messenger look what they had. They had a simple masjid, made of clay bricks and mud, date palm roof. when it rained they made sujud in the mud. Now look what we have and the condtion of the people.

As i said and have argued before. I will never say that every muslim conquest of the known world outside of arabia was peaceful. for not every muslim leader who lead a conquest outside of arabia had the taqwa of the Sahaba. some committed the highest levels of justice by upholding the Quran and the Sunnah like Omar ibn al Khattab, Ali, and Uthman. And also Omar Abdul Aziz but the others is very questionable. But it is those who best exemplified the deen of Islam, for the deen of Islam calls for the most peaceful way of spreading itself. And was always put out their in this manner. But the majority of people will not leave their wealth and power for Allah so easily. Especially the nations whose leaders are corrupt. I.e. like Rome and Persia for example. If they accepted the ivitation of islam that would mean no more corruption, abuse, oppression, and crimes of injustice which is what kept them rich in the first place. Regardless of the condition of its people.

this is not the way of the Sahaba. This is not islam. If muslim leaders go outside of that then they will have to answer to Allah for what they did. But our examples are our examples. the Prophet said follow the righteous caliphs after him. And their are not that many. Why? only three generations.

Peace.

[QUOTE:kai]let me address some of those points:

Quote: Fatihah
Response: You've given a timeline but unfortunately it doesn't support your claim but does the exact opposite. Throughout the whole timeline, we don't see that the muslims have lost control of Spain until 1492. Your timeline starts at 750 AD. You do the math. That's 800+ years of muslim rule in Spain as I said.(End quote)

Quote: Kai
Spain is a whole country, Toledo fell by 1064 and By 1252 only the Emirate Granada remained and that was lost in 1492 what we have is 800 years of a Muslim presence in the Iberian peninsular(end quote)

Response: There are muslims still there today. So this is not a case of muslims in the Iberian peninular for just 800 years.

Quote: Fatihah
Surely you show victories of the non-muslims but it isn't until 1492 that the muslim empire was defeated. That goes to show that that the muslims must have retaliated and won after their losses and you have conveniently left those victories out. Like the victory of Yusuf bin Tashfin in 1086 over King Alfonso or the 27 year rule of Mutayyah Billah that ended in 1006 after his death. By the way, what empire are these people from? You still haven't mentioned it. And it is the oddest thing in your post. You are demonstrationg 800 years of muslims being defeated and losing their land, not the other way around. So based on your own words, who in fact is fixed on imperialism? And yet the issue at hand is seeming to be sidestepped. The question is whether islam is a religion of peace or war. In order to know so, you also have to examine the other side. Amazingly, we are over 200 posts in the thread and not once have you addressed the other side and questioned their reasons.(End quote)
Quote: gnostic
You said they ruled Spain for 800 years in peace , i said they never ruled all of Spain and it wasnt 800 years of peace.
(End quote)

Response: They did rule all of Spain. Your timeline shows this. It shows the muslims losing the land. How do you lose something you don't have?

Quote: Fatihah
You do know for a fact that the same people who conquered Spain are the same ruthless people who started to trade people from Africa to Europe and the America's as slaves for the next 400 years. (End quote)

Quote: Kai
Oh yes everyone had slaves back then ,including the Arabs.(End quote)

Quote: Fatihah
These are the same people who claimed they discovered America and massacred the natives there in order to establish their rule. This is a clear act of imperialism.(End quote)

Quote: Kai
Yes it is (End quote)

Response: Thank you for the honesty.

Quote: Fatihah
Christopher Columbus purposely set sail to do just that!! So how do you start a thread as to whether islam is a religion of peace or war and not hold into account the type of enemies they were facing, especially since we're dealing with Spain?(End quote)

Quote: Kai
Because its about the Muslim empires not Spain , Spain is only one of many countries that were occupied by Muslims
(End quote)


Response: But you can't discover the truth by investigating one side. No court sytem, when trying to pass judgement, interogates just one side. It's unfair. It's unjust. If two parties are involved, then both are examined. If you are a person who is sincere on knowing the truth, you would do the same.

Quote: Fatihah
With all this evidence, are you saying that the europeans and christians never were the agressors? If so, where is the time line and incidents of those actions. If we're being fair to both sides, you should have no problem doing the same for the other side.(End quote)

Quote: Kai
OH no thats not what i am saying at all, i am saying that the Muslim Expansion from Arabia was not peaceful but imperialistic.Sure there have been other Empires and i would very much like to discuss the later Spanish one , but this thread is about the Islamic ones.
(End quote)

Response: My friend, you show a timeline proving to the contrary. You haven't shown any case of muslims driven on imperialism. By 1453, the empire of Constantine was finally defeated completely by the Ottoman empire. The empire also controlled North Africa, the middle east, India, and as you just showed, the muslims were defeated from Spain in 1492. Even before this, the muslims practically owned most of the Constantine empire's territory by the 14th century before the Ottomans even came into power. There was no force on earth that could defeat the muslims! By this time, the muslims could have easily flooded the world on imperialism. There was no existing empire to stop them. But as you can see today, that is not the case. The world is not under muslim rule. That didn't happen. This goes to show that the muslims were not acting this way.

Another thing to point. You do know that the largest muslim populations are in Southeast Asia. I'm asking the question, being that most muslims are there,(Malaysia,Indonesia) what muslim army went there? I'll help you. None. Not a single one. Nor can you find one. This is further proof that islam was not fixed on imperialism.

Quote: Kai
Your response from page 19Response: You're right. I rephrased it wrong. What I meant was that it was 800 years of them wanting peace with their neighbors and not imperialism.


yes i find this a very strange answer , that the Muslims can invade Hispania and then claim victim status over the Reconquista,as i have already said its history versus Ahistory i am interested in (End quote)

Response: And as I explained, the conquest of Spain was requested by those of Spain. The muslims were asked to remove the cruel dictatorship of the Christian ruler, Roderick, by the people of Spain. So Musa bin Nusair of North Africa came to their aid. It was then that the muslims conqured Spain. Before this, the muslims did not try to conquer Spain. If the muslims were fixed on imperialism, why didn't they try to attack Spain before this? Also, you haven't shown no great increase in land of the Spanish empire except a small area between two cities in a 800 year span, but a timeline showing them losing Spain. With these facts, it is clear that imperialism was not on the mind of muslims.

Mujahid Mohammed said:

I understand what you are saying but that is something generally the laymen discuss, but not the scholars or students of knowlede. The true historian sifts through the bias statements and looks at the facts.

Because the scholar of history is not trying to establish perspective but just what happened.

whether or not God was on the their side or not is irrelevant from a historian's standpoint. Now one can argue whether or not they were or not but it would be based on whether you agree with whatever thing happened to get them to that point.


As I said the laymen look back on it as a period of nostalgia. But the muslim scholars look at this era as a time when the muslims were on the downward spiral because all the success of the world they got from taking over spain brought them closer to it and seperated them from the Creator. All those big buildings, great institutions, massive wealth caused corruption in the hearts of the muslims. this is why they eventually lost because in attaining all this worldly stuff they left the sunnah of the Messenger and his Sahaba and especially the righteous caliphs. they became unjust, corrupt, greedy and deviant.

People who don't have knowledge look at the muslim times when the muslims had the most money, the most land space and all the power as these great era's in Islam. And yes in a wordly sense what they achieved was great. But what the Prophet and the Sahaba did was lay the groundwork for the future the they did it by having the deepest knowledge of the Quran, the most pious hearts and being the least superficial. We lost that...

As I said before the thing the Prophet was most feared about and said in many hadith that he doesn't fear poverty for his people but wealth. for he knew it is one of the biggest gateways for Shaiton to take over.

The best people was in the time of the Messenger look what they had. They had a simple masjid, made of clay bricks and mud, date palm roof. when it rained they made sujud in the mud. Now look what we have and the condtion of the people.

As i said and have argued before. I will never say that every muslim conquest of the known world outside of arabia was peaceful. for not every muslim leader who lead a conquest outside of arabia had the taqwa of the Sahaba. some committed the highest levels of justice by upholding the Quran and the Sunnah like Omar ibn al Khattab, Ali, and Uthman. And also Omar Abdul Aziz but the others is very questionable. But it is those who best exemplified the deen of Islam, for the deen of Islam calls for the most peaceful way of spreading itself. And was always put out their in this manner. But the majority of people will not leave their wealth and power for Allah so easily. Especially the nations whose leaders are corrupt. I.e. like Rome and Persia for example. If they accepted the ivitation of islam that would mean no more corruption, abuse, oppression, and crimes of injustice which is what kept them rich in the first place. Regardless of the condition of its people.

this is not the way of the Sahaba. This is not islam. If muslim leaders go outside of that then they will have to answer to Allah for what they did. But our examples are our examples. the Prophet said follow the righteous caliphs after him. And their are not that many. Why? only three generations.

Peace.

Click to expand...

a very interesting answer thank you very much.

Response: There are muslims still there today. So this is not a case of muslims in the Iberian peninular for just 800 years.

True but irrelevant, i am sure you know what i mean .




Response: They did rule all of Spain. Your timeline shows this. It shows the muslims losing the land. How do you lose something you don't have?

no they didnt ever succeed in taking the Basque area or Galicia ,Asturias.Tariq landed in 711 and the conquest of the rest of the Iberian peninsular took around 8 years Al-Andalus then becam part of the Umayyad empire.

They moved into France but were defeated at the battle of tours in 732 but still held parts of France untill around 975


Response: But you can't discover the truth by investigating one side. No court sytem, when trying to pass judgement, interogates just one side. It's unfair. It's unjust. If two parties are involved, then both are examined. If you are a person who is sincere on knowing the truth, you would do the same.


Indeed thats why i am continuosly asking for Islamic sources, i have examined the reconquista but can find very little from the Muslim side.

Response: My friend, you show a timeline proving to the contrary. You haven't shown any case of muslims driven on imperialism. I am not trying to, i beleive they were driven on by Islam but since then there is an attempt to deny or change history by stating that it was peaceful in any case with the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations you have yourself an Empire adding to that Empire is Imperialistic

By 1453, the empire of Constantine was finally defeated completely by the Ottoman empire. The empire also controlled North Africa, the middle east, India, and as you just showed, the muslims were defeated from Spain in 1492. Even before this, the muslims practically owned most of the Constantine empire's territory by the 14th century before the Ottomans even came into power. There was no force on earth that could defeat the muslims! By this time, the muslims could have easily flooded the world on imperialism. There was no existing empire to stop them. But as you can see today, that is not the case. The world is not under muslim rule. That didn't happen. This goes to show that the muslims were not acting this way.

Fatihah there has never been an Empire that ruled the entire world , Roman , British,Ottoman,tell me does that mean that just because the British did not rule the entire world that they did not have an Empire.? that a silly argument


Another thing to point. You do know that the largest muslim populations are in Southeast Asia. I'm asking the question, being that most muslims are there,(Malaysia,Indonesia) what muslim army went there? I'll help you. None. Not a single one. Nor can you find one. This is further proof that islam was not fixed on imperialism. Yes i am aware most Muslims bring that up but its also irelevant to the debate was the conversion of Malaysia,Indonesia taking place during the Caliphate? if there was no army ,no invasion,No Caliph? then its out of the story isnt it , remember that this is about Muslim military expansion .


Response: And as I explained, the conquest of Spain was requested by those of Spain. The muslims were asked to remove the cruel dictatorship of the Christian ruler, Roderick, by the people of Spain. Do you have any sources for this story ? from the Spanish side it is considered a legend propogated by the Muslims much later, So Musa bin Nusair of North Africa came to their aid. It was then that the muslims conqured Spain. Before this, the muslims did not try to conquer Spain. If the muslims were fixed on imperialism, why didn't they try to attack Spain before this? well thay had to take North Afica first Also, you haven't shown no great increase in land of the Spanish empire except a small area between two cities in a 800 year span, but a timeline showing them losing Spain. With these facts, it is clear that imperialism was not on the mind of muslims.Dont forget its not the Spanish Empire we are discussing but the Umayyad and you can clearly see the land increase from Arabia on my map

so you agree that they did conquer North Africa then Spain and try to conquer France , but this is not imperialism ?. the Iberian Peninsular is a long way from the Arabian Peninsular



the Umayyad Caliphate

[QUOTE:kai]
Quote: Fatihah
Response: There are muslims still there today. So this is not a case of muslims in the Iberian peninular for just 800 years.(End quote)


Quote: Kai
True but irrelevant, i am sure you know what i mean .(end quote)

Response: Not at all.

Quote: Fatihah
Response: They did rule all of Spain. Your timeline shows this. It shows the muslims losing the land. How do you lose something you don't have?(End quote)

Quote: Kai
no they didnt ever succeed in taking the Basque area or Galicia ,Asturias.Tariq landed in 711 and the conquest of the rest of the Iberian peninsular took around 8 years Al-Andalus then becam part of the Umayyad empire.(End quote)

Response: This is according to who? And exactly why and how were they unable to not conquer the land?

Quote: Kai
They moved into France but were defeated at the battle of tours in 732 but still held parts of France untill around 975(end quote)

Response: This does not mean that they did not control Spain.

Quote: Fatihah
Response: But you can't discover the truth by investigating one side. No court sytem, when trying to pass judgement, interogates just one side. It's unfair. It's unjust. If two parties are involved, then both are examined. If you are a person who is sincere on knowing the truth, you would do the same.(End quote)

Quote: Kai
Indeed thats why i am continuosly asking for Islamic sources, i have examined the reconquista but can find very little from the Muslim side.(End quote)

Response: Point taken. But it's not just the muslim's side but the non-muslim side as well that needs to be examined. It's not muslim belief that christian europe was injust. You'll even find other non-muslims and christians themselves saying the same. And in order to get the side of the muslims, you will have to go to the muslims. There are many books written by muslims on this matter. Everything is not on the internet.

Quote: Fatihah
Response: My friend, you show a timeline proving to the contrary. You haven't shown any case of muslims driven on imperialism.(End quote)

Quote: Kai
I am not trying to, i beleive they were driven on by Islam but since then there is an attempt to deny or change history by stating that it was peaceful in any case with the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations you have yourself an Empire adding to that Empire is Imperialistic(end quote)

Response: You clearly said in post 210:
OH no thats not what i am saying at all, i am saying that the Muslim Expansion from Arabia was not peaceful but imperialistic.Sure there have been other Empires and i would very much like to discuss the later Spanish one , but this thread is about the Islamic ones.
(end quote)

Your words clearly say that the muslim expansion from Arabia was imperialistic. You have no proof that they were. So now we read above that you are "not" trying to show that it was imperialistic? Then why are we wasting time in this discussion? My whole point was to show that islam and muslims were not driven on imperialism and here you are saying that muslims were but don't wish to provide any proof? You could have said this a long time ago and I wouldn't have wasted my time.

Fatihah said:

[QUOTE:kai]
Quote: Fatihah
Response: There are muslims still there today. So this is not a case of muslims in the Iberian peninular for just 800 years.(End quote)


Quote: Kai
True but irrelevant, i am sure you know what i mean .(end quote)

Response: Not at all.

Quote: Fatihah
Response: They did rule all of Spain. Your timeline shows this. It shows the muslims losing the land. How do you lose something you don't have?(End quote)

Quote: Kai
no they didnt ever succeed in taking the Basque area or Galicia ,Asturias.Tariq landed in 711 and the conquest of the rest of the Iberian peninsular took around 8 years Al-Andalus then becam part of the Umayyad empire.(End quote)

Response: This is according to who? And exactly why and how were they unable to not conquer the land?

Quote: Kai
They moved into France but were defeated at the battle of tours in 732 but still held parts of France untill around 975(end quote)

Response: This does not mean that they did not control Spain.

Quote: Fatihah
Response: But you can't discover the truth by investigating one side. No court sytem, when trying to pass judgement, interogates just one side. It's unfair. It's unjust. If two parties are involved, then both are examined. If you are a person who is sincere on knowing the truth, you would do the same.(End quote)

Quote: Kai
Indeed thats why i am continuosly asking for Islamic sources, i have examined the reconquista but can find very little from the Muslim side.(End quote)

Response: Point taken. But it's not just the muslim's side but the non-muslim side as well that needs to be examined. It's not muslim belief that christian europe was injust. You'll even find other non-muslims and christians themselves saying the same. And in order to get the side of the muslims, you will have to go to the muslims. There are many books written by muslims on this matter. Everything is not on the internet.

Quote: Fatihah
Response: My friend, you show a timeline proving to the contrary. You haven't shown any case of muslims driven on imperialism.(End quote)

Quote: Kai
I am not trying to, i beleive they were driven on by Islam but since then there is an attempt to deny or change history by stating that it was peaceful in any case with the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations you have yourself an Empire adding to that Empire is Imperialistic(end quote)

Response: You clearly said in post 210:
OH no thats not what i am saying at all, i am saying that the Muslim Expansion from Arabia was not peaceful but imperialistic.Sure there have been other Empires and i would very much like to discuss the later Spanish one , but this thread is about the Islamic ones.
(end quote)

Your words clearly say that the muslim expansion from Arabia was imperialistic. You have no proof that they were. So now we read above that you are "not" trying to show that it was imperialistic? Then why are we wasting time in this discussion? My whole point was to show that islam and muslims were not driven on imperialism and here you are saying that muslims were but don't wish to provide any proof? You could have said this a long time ago and I wouldn't have wasted my time.

Click to expand...

I repeat "with the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations you have yourself an Empire adding to that Empire is Imperialistic"


but yes we are wasting out time going around in circles, i would agree to dissagree but i really dont know what about anymore. you havnt really addressed anything i posted and havnt really added anything to the discussion.

thanks for the chat rather confusing but a nice chat anyway.

was Islam the driving force that created an Empire?

Does the world belong to Allah ? and was it the duty of the Caliph to spread the rule of Allah?

kai said:

was Islam the driving force that created an Empire?

Click to expand...

What do you mean?

Does the world belong to Allah ? and was it the duty of the Caliph to spread the rule of Allah?

Click to expand...

Yes, and it was to spread the word of Allah and his religion that he legislated throughout mankind, and to also spread his rule all based on the principles of being just, righteous, and not greedy. To stop oppression and tyranny wherever it may be whether caused by non muslims or muslims. It doesn't matter. We are bound by the Creator to protect, respect and cherish all life. But their are some who are completely against that. they want to oppress, cause corruption, demoralize, and destroy the social and moral status of society. And these people (the elite) often times as i said will not give up this power so easily even though it is what is best. And some times you have to fight them. Look at the mongolians, If no one fought Hitler what do you think the condition of the world would be in. If the blood of Hitler's army was not spilt and his facist government not austed. What do you think the condition of the world would be in. so the religion requires us to stop oppression, and tyranny and at the same time tell the people about the religion of Islam.

But it must be spread the way the Prophet, his companions and the righteous caliphs four of which are companions. and they are the only one's whose ways are to be accepted according to the Quran and hadith... they spread the religion in the best way and they ruled with the most justice. Cannot be said for many of the other's among the later generations. they are the examples everyone else is questionable.

Mujahid Mohammed said:

What do you mean?
I think you answered it here:
Yes, and it was to spread the word of Allah and his religion that he legislated throughout mankind, and to also spread his rule all based on the principles of being just, righteous, and not greedy. To stop oppression and tyranny wherever it may be whether caused by non muslims or muslims. It doesn't matter. We are bound by the Creator to protect, respect and cherish all life. But their are some who are completely against that. they want to oppress, cause corruption, demoralize, and destroy the social and moral status of society. And these people (the elite) often times as i said will not give up this power so easily even though it is what is best. And some times you have to fight them. Look at the mongolians, If no one fought Hitler what do you think the condition of the world would be in. If the blood of Hitler's army was not spilt and his facist government not austed. What do you think the condition of the world would be in. so the religion requires us to stop oppression, and tyranny and at the same time tell the people about the religion of Islam.

But it must be spread the way the Prophet, his companions and the righteous caliphs four of which are companions. and they are the only one's whose ways are to be accepted according to the Quran and hadith... they spread the religion in the best way and they ruled with the most justice. Cannot be said for many of the other's among the later generations. they are the examples everyone else is questionable.

Click to expand...

but would the later Caliphs not be following in the tradition of the righteous Caliphs after all they spread outwards from the Arabian peninsular?

maybe there actions when in control was wrong but were their intentions any different concerning expansion. i have already asked this but wouldn't any non Islamic rule be considered corrupt by the Caliphs.

kai said:

but would the later Caliphs not be following in the tradition of the righteous Caliphs after all they spread outwards from the Arabian peninsular?

Click to expand...

give me an example. the later Caliphs were they own men. They grew up in different times the conditions were different. Remember the companions had the most pious hearts and the least superficial. they weren't as corrupt as the later generations. The bidah and fitnah never came from Arabia once Islam took over. It came from the other nations (iraq, yemen, jordan, syria) whose conditions made them more prone to commit bidah and fitnah.

maybe there actions when in control was wrong but were their intentions any different concerning expansion. i have already asked this but wouldn't any non Islamic rule be considered corrupt by the Caliphs.

Click to expand...

No cause as I told you before the muslims did not want to take over rule, just to spread islam. so it is a part of sharia for the non muslims to have their own systems, they develop their own court systems, financial, social and educational all with the help of the muslims. the righteous caliphs would build churches burnt down and protect the non muslims. When the non muslim commits a crime he is not punished according to our law. If they get caught drinking they do not get a hundred lashes. Adultery death. Unless this is what they themselves administered in their own courts, where their own laws are upheld.


It is only later when some of them got big heads because of their wealth and position that they displaced themselves and possibly committed huge transgressions. this is part of the reason Allah sent the Ta Tar(mongols, the khan etc.) to take out the corrupt leaders. Allah doesn't care, if a leader displaces power and commits injustice He will remove them even if they are muslim.

And as you can see that is what happened. The same will go for every other one as well. Eventually they all will come to an end. Whether at the hands of the believers or themselves. History always repeats itself. As Allah says there is nothing new under the sun.


And whether you win or lose it is all a test from Allah, did you as a leader do all you could to uphold justice, and administer the blessings of Allah to the people under you. did you uphold all the rights that every person have. Were you just in your thinking and looked at only the hearts and not skin or type person. did you rule by the book of Allah and the sunnah of the Messenger. that is what the deal is and that is what all the leaders will be asked. did you in your decision making do it to please Allah.

Not many can say they...