Muhammad's conquests after Mecca and Taif

[Atman]

Before I begin I want to note I don't have any ill will towards Islam, and certainly not towards Muslims. I view some Islamic mystics like Mansur Al Hallaj, Haji Bektash Veli, and (of course) Rumi in very high standards. In their writings I find a reflection of my own panentheistic/monistic religious beliefs, which I very much admire. Having made that note I want to discuss an aspect of the prophet Muhammad's life that many find controversial or criticize, and of which I am unsure of the historical accuracy.

Based on most of the english biographies I have read of Muhammad, the only major military conflict mentioned after Muhammad's conquest of Mecca, is with the city of Ta'if. However through reading I have found mention of Muhammad ordering Khalid to commit a siege against the city of Dumatul Jandal in order to destroy the idol and temple of Wadd (mentioned in Hisham Ibn Al-Kalbi's "Book of Idols"), Muhammad ordering the new convert Surad Ibn Abdullah to fight pagan tribes in the Yemeni city of Jurash (mentioned by the hadith collector Al Tabari, and earlier by the Muslim historian and scholar Ibn Sa'd Al Baghdadi), and Muhammad ordering the destruction of the pagan shrine in Yemen of Dhul Khalasa, which lead to the death of 300 Yemeni pagans attempting to defend their temple (mentioned by Ibn Al Kalbi in his "Book of Idols" as well as by Al Bukhari in his "Sahih al-Bukhari" hadith collection.)

Based on the sources I have given above do the Muslim members here generally acknowledge these expeditions and the reasons given for them as being historical in nature? Do Islamic scholars? Do secular scholars of Islam? I understand Sahih al-Bukhari is considered to be rather authoritative in nature, but what about the other sources mentioned? What do these incidents say about the nature of how Islam should be spread? About religious tolerance? About how muslims should conduct themselves today?

Again I realize the sensitive nature of these questions, but I ask them not to attempt to slander Islam, Muslims, or even Muhammad that matter, but to grasp at what the beliefs and actions of the historical Muhammad were in regards to issues like religious tolerance, and how Islam should be propagated.

 

[paarsurrey]

Before I begin I want to note I don't have any ill will towards Islam, and certainly not towards Muslims. I view some Islamic mystics like Mansur Al Hallaj, Haji Bektash Veli, and (of course) Rumi in very high standards. In their writings I find a reflection of my own panentheistic/monistic religious beliefs, which I very much admire. Having made that note I want to discuss an aspect of the prophet Muhammad's life that many find controversial or criticize, and of which I am unsure of the historical accuracy.

Based on most of the english biographies I have read of Muhammad, the only major military conflict mentioned after Muhammad's conquest of Mecca, is with the city of Ta'if. However through reading I have found mention of Muhammad ordering Khalid to commit a siege against the city of Dumatul Jandal in order to destroy the idol and temple of Wadd (mentioned in Hisham Ibn Al-Kalbi's "Book of Idols"), Muhammad ordering the new convert Surad Ibn Abdullah to fight pagan tribes in the Yemeni city of Jurash (mentioned by the hadith collector Al Tabari, and earlier by the Muslim historian and scholar Ibn Sa'd Al Baghdadi), and Muhammad ordering the destruction of the pagan shrine in Yemen of Dhul Khalasa, which lead to the death of 300 Yemeni pagans attempting to defend their temple (mentioned by Ibn Al Kalbi in his "Book of Idols" as well as by Al Bukhari in his "Sahih al-Bukhari" hadith collection.)

Based on the sources I have given above do the Muslim members here generally acknowledge these expeditions and the reasons given for them as being historical in nature? Do Islamic scholars? Do secular scholars of Islam? I understand Sahih al-Bukhari is considered to be rather authoritative in nature, but what about the other sources mentioned? What do these incidents say about the nature of how Islam should be spread? About religious tolerance? About how muslims should conduct themselves today?

Again I realize the sensitive nature of these questions, but I ask them not to attempt to slander Islam, Muslims, or even Muhammad that matter, but to grasp at what the beliefs and actions of the historical Muhammad were in regards to issues like religious tolerance, and how Islam should be propagated.

What do these incidents say about the nature of how Islam should be spread?

The first source of guidance of Muslims is Quran, whatever the denomination. All Islamic teachings are incorporated in it.

As to how Islam is to be spread is also mentioned in it.

Islam is for guiding humanity in ethical, moral and spiritual realms; conquests of territories or their occupation is not its subject.

Unless forced into a defensive posture; Islam does not allow to fight.

Islam is spread by the brilliant and reasonable arguments mentioned in Quran peacefully and with peaceful dialogue.

Does that help? Please
Regards

 

[columbus]

I'm hoping for an historically informed response to this post.

My own , sketchy at best, understanding of ancient Muslim culture is that it was quite violent and oppressive. That doesn't make them unusual, the ancient Israelites were about the same. And my own culture, Catholic and USonian, is guilty of some gigantic crimes against humanity. What I am trying to say is that this is not about finger pointing. It is about how to deal with the current reality.

Are groups like ISIS unIslamic as is often claimed, misguided Muslims as is also claimed, or oldschool Islamic as the history appears to me? Something else?
Tom

Eta: paarsurrey posted while I was ~

 

[gnostic]

The first source of guidance of Muslims is Quran, whatever the denomination. All Islamic teachings are incorporated in it.

As to how Islam is to be spread is also mentioned in it.

Islam is for guiding humanity in ethical, moral and spiritual realms; conquests of territories or their occupation is not its subject.

Unless forced into a defensive posture; Islam does not allow to fight.

Islam is spread by the brilliant and reasonable arguments mentioned in Quran peacefully and with peaceful dialogue.

If there are no compulsions in Islam, then why destroy other people's temples, shrines or idols?

If you destroy another religion's idols, then you are using FORCE, and it is hardly peaceful action or dialogue. This is not action of religion of peace, but then again, Islam was never about peace. If Muslims truly respect other religions, then they shouldn't be destroying other religions or religious artifacts.

Muhammad and the Qur'an say one thing, but do something the total opposite, is clearly double-standard or hypocrisy.

You want peaceful and non-violent diplomacy with different cultures or different religions, then leave the temples and idols bl@@dy well alone.

Do you like it, when others destroy your mosque? No?

The truth is Muslims are no better than Christians, when it comes to vandalising other people's religions.

 

[paarsurrey]

If there are no compulsions in Islam, then why destroy other people's temples, shrines or idols?

If you destroy another religion's idols, then you are using FORCE, and it is hardly peaceful action or dialogue. This is not action of religion of peace, but then again, Islam was never about peace. If Muslims truly respect other religions, then they shouldn't be destroying other religions or religious artifacts.

Muhammad and the Qur'an say one thing, but do something the total opposite, is clearly double-standard or hypocrisy.

You want peaceful and non-violent diplomacy with different cultures or different religions, then leave the temples and idols bl@@dy well alone.

Do you like it, when others destroy your mosque? No?

The truth is Muslims are no better than Christians, when it comes to vandalising other people's religions.

If there are no compulsions in Islam, then why destroy other people's temples, shrines or idols?

There are clear instructions not to destroy temples or worship places in Quran:

[22:40] Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged — and Allah indeed has power to help them —
[22:41] Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, ‘Our Lord is Allah’ — And if Allah did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft commemorated. And Allah will surely help one who helps Him. Allah is indeed Powerful, Mighty —
[22:42] Those who, if We establish them in the earth, will observe Prayer and pay the Zakat and enjoin good and forbid evil. And with Allah rests the final issue of all affairs.

The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online

Worship places of every religion are protected; in fact defensive wars are allowed to protect freedom of every religion.

Regards

 

[ZooGirl02]

The Quran says that there is no compulsion in religion but yet Muslims and perhaps even Muhammad destroyed Pagan temples and idols. To me, that shows compulsion and therefore I cannot take Islam seriously on that part at the least.

 

[Atman]

[22:40] Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged — and Allah indeed has power to help them —
[22:41] Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, ‘Our Lord is Allah’ — And if Allah did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft commemorated. And Allah will surely help one who helps Him. Allah is indeed Powerful, Mighty —

But the portion of the Quran you have quoted clearly refers to "the people of the book" other monotheists. The second verse even says "because they have said 'Our Lord is Allah' " There is no condemnation of destroying the places of worship for other gods. At any rate my question still stands. Are these sources mentioning Muhammad's campaigns against pagan places of worship authentic? How do modern historians regard these events?

 

[gnostic]

There are clear instructions not to destroy temples or worship places in Quran:

[22:40] Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged — and Allah indeed has power to help them —
[22:41] Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, ‘Our Lord is Allah’ — And if Allah did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft commemorated. And Allah will surely help one who helps Him. Allah is indeed Powerful, Mighty —
[22:42] Those who, if We establish them in the earth, will observe Prayer and pay the Zakat and enjoin good and forbid evil. And with Allah rests the final issue of all affairs.

In 630, when Mecca surrendered to Muhammad, who had a force of 10,000 men, he had all idols destroyed. And when took over other towns, his army began systematically destroying temples and idols in Arabia.

So I don't see how that fall under being peaceful or respectful to other religions.

 

[YmirGF]

In 630, when Mecca surrendered to Muhammad, who had a force of 10,000 men, he had all idols destroyed. And when took over other towns, his army began systematically destroying temples and idols in Arabia.

So I don't see how that fall under being peaceful or respectful to other religions.

Frankly, the destruction of the totems and idols, then placing your own god where they stood is about as disrespectful as things get. It is similar in the case of the Al-Aqsa mosque which was built on top of the ruins of the holiest site in Judaism.