any source about The Prophet of Islam you could find on-line or here and there use Islamic source as starters. do you know why? let me tell you, sweet thing. because humans can not travel in time. Islamic sources hold the information about Islam. the rest of sources take whatever suits their personal opinions. Christians believe in Bible. in case a Christian claim Jesus PBUH to be space alien then i would ask for verse from Bible at least to see it is written there. i am not obligated to believe it or not. and, unlike you i am not claiming Christians or Christianity to be this or that. we believe differently and everybody knows that.
Historians use Islamic and non-Islamic sources. My point is that there is a difference between History and apologetics. They use different standards. It's not about the individual's religion, but their methodology.
In general, when someone has an agenda to push, a propaganda mission, that must be taken into account when using their writings as a historical source. It doesn't mean you throw them out the window, but that you need to take into account why they wrote what they wrote--what their goal or purpose was.
In general, the Bible is not a reliable direct source for history, because they people who wrote it did so with a specific purpose that motivated them to distort (not to mention see differently). Yet we can use it to establish certain things, as long as we take that into account.
For example, if we see Greek ways of thinking or speaking, then we know the people encountered Greek ways of seeing things.
In trying to learn about the life of Muhammad, the qur'an is a source, but we need to take into account when it was written and why. To verify any allegation in it, we need to find a non-Muslim source that doesn't share the motive to spread Islam.
The best sources are those that are written for other, more nuetral reasons. For example, if someone is making business records, and mentions that they paid so much tax to such an authority, that's very good evidence of that authority and that tax.
geez. i am not even sure if Prophet ever left Arabia. what empire are you talking about?
Wow, why is this so hard? None of this is the least bit controversial. Muhammad attacked Meccan caravans, defeated and occupied Mecca, and united the tribes of Arabia. He led battles himself, and sent others into battle.
Soon after his death, the united Muslim tribes conquered Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia. Eventually, this empire stretched from Pakistan to Spain. (more on this later, as I think it is another significant contributing factor to the present situation.)
as long as you consider Islam to be their true reason to ack fascistic and cruel and since all Muslims believe in Qur'an....yes, that's what you are doing IMO.
I have said over and over I have no opinion and don't care what is "true Islam" or whether what they are doing is Islamic or not. All that I am saying (so far) is that one of the reasons they do what they do is the actual words of the qur'an. Another reason is the life of their model, Muhammad.
Islam has ended a few old pre-Islamic traditions and slavery was one of them. it was long before West side of the world started selling people.
What a crock. Arab Muslims dominated the slave trade from the 8th to the 18th century, capturing, enslaving, and selling literally millions of human beings. Again--non-controversial historical fact.
Are you trying to assert that there was no slavery in the Muslim empire?
Again, have you ever read any actual history, as opposed to Muslim apologetics?