Why did Muslims set out to conquer the world?

Andya_Primanda

Peace,

One source said that the expansion of early Muslims was motivated by mundane reasons.

Khalifah Umar saw that he's in command of a lot of Arab tribes who had been killing each other before Islam, and he needed unity among his subjects. So expansion was the way to channel that agressive energy without sacrificing unity.

Jafar

Facts? Africa was not invaded by armies?!
In fact Spain was conquered in 711 by a Muslim army, coming from todays Morocco; which is in Africa. They were actually invited by a faction of the Visigoth rulers and the level of resistance was such that the whole country was overrun in a year.
This was due to a number of factors the main one being that Jews and Christian sects were terribly oppressed by the dominant Catholics. In fact the great majority of Jews and a sizable force of Chrsitians joined them and fought side by side with the muslims. What were they doing there? Well for one they brought freedom of religion and civilization to the terribly oppressed Spaniards.

Some 50 yrs prior to that all of North Africa had been conquered by Arab muslims .

So the early muslims was fighting againts religious oppresions and establish a SECULAR GOVERNMENT?
And today so-called "Muslims" was fighting against and oppress those who violates THE AQEDAH and trying to establish a SECTARIAN GOVERNMENT?

Peace

Samia

This was due to a number of factors the main one being that Jews and Christian sects were terribly oppressed by the dominant Catholics. In fact the great majority of Jews and a sizable force of Chrsitians joined them and fought side by side with the muslims. What were they doing there? Well for one they brought freedom of religion and civilization to the terribly oppressed Spaniards.

I mean sub-saharan Africa. Why did they have to go to Europe to "save Christians and Jews", when they had the balck Africans without any book, and they were nearer to them?

Rumi

I mean sub-saharan Africa. Why did they have to go to Europe to "save Christians and Jews", when they had the balck Africans without any book, and they were nearer to them?

Because black africans were generally slaves at the time, i don't know?? But you do have a point, logically sub-saharan africa would've been easier to spread the message and the book, could the reason have been racism?

Islam in East Asia was not spread by conquering armies but by traders and now centuries later after the arrival of the Quran, a once hindu Indonesia has the worlds largest number of Muslims. I believe it's a true testament to "Let there be no compulsion in religion".

ayman

Peace G.Omar,

but the question remains why did Muslims conquer the world?

Who said that they did? Certainly those who were conquered do not perceive such thing. There is absolutely no mention by the people who were conquered such as the Roman Christians of any entity called Muslims that conquered them. Their record from the time of the conquests talks about being invaded by a group called Muhagarye in coalition with the Jews and the pagans. There is no record of "Muslims" invading anybody. As for the motives for the invasion, here is what the conquered people recorded in their manuscripts from the era

They talk about the invaders taking taxes from them. The Jews and Muhagarye were exempt from those taxes. Naturally, many of the conquered people "converted" to the new religion to save money.
They talk about the Muhagarye giving Jews vast areas of land and the Jews enslaving the Roman Christians to work the land.
They talk about the invaders cleaning up an area that was a garbage dump in Jerusalem and erecting two shrines, a Jewish one and a Muhagarye one side by side.
They talk about Christstian sects that they considered heretic joining the Muhagarye against them.

The writings from the Jews also confirm the above and even praise the second king of the Arabs (Umar) as a "lover of Israel" who restored their temple.

So the types of reasons for the conquest were like all the conquests of empire builders throughout the ages and to this day economic, social dominance and religious.

On the other hand, a "muslim"/peacemaker doesn't care about conquests or empire building for any reason. So it is no wonder that "Muslims" are not mentioned at a time when the word still had meaning.

Peace,

Ayman

G_Omar

Peace G.Omar,

Who said that they did? Certainly those who were conquered do not perceive such thing. There is absolutely no mention by the people who were conquered such as the Roman Christians of any entity called Muslims that conquered them. Their record from the time of the conquests talks about being invaded by a group called Muhagarye in coalition with the Jews and the pagans. There is no record of "Muslims" invading anybody. As for the motives for the invasion, here is what the conquered people recorded in their manuscripts from the era

They talk about the invaders taking taxes from them. The Jews and Muhagarye were exempt from those taxes. Naturally, many of the conquered people "converted" to the new religion to save money.
They talk about the Muhagarye giving Jews vast areas of land and the Jews enslaving the Roman Christians to work the land.
They talk about the invaders cleaning up an area that was a garbage dump in Jerusalem and erecting two shrines, a Jewish one and a Muhagarye one side by side.
They talk about Christstian sects that they considered heretic joining the Muhagarye against them.

The writings from the Jews also confirm the above and even praise the second king of the Arabs (Umar) as a "lover of Israel" who restored their temple.

So the types of reasons for the conquest were like all the conquests of empire builders throughout the ages and to this day economic, social dominance and religious.

On the other hand, a "muslim"/peacemaker doesn't care about conquests or empire building for any reason. So it is no wonder that "Muslims" are not mentioned at a time when the word still had meaning.

Peace,

Ayman

Peace Ayman,

Christians have called Muslims by all manner of names, "Muhammadans" perhaps being the most prominent. I'm not sure even Muslims themselves referred to themselves as such at this time. As far as I understand "Muhagarye" is an Arabic word meaning those who emigrate (as in Hijra). To my knowledge Muslims were the ones that conquered Eastern Rome and with the help of its opressed, the Jews and different Christian sects. I doubt there would have been many pagans left at this time though.
The taxes you talk about must be the Jizyia which was in substitution for being exempted from military service which mainly Jews and Muslims performed. I am sure this was not about empire building but in response to the Quranic injunction to fight against oppression as "Oppression is worse than killing? and against those who make mischief in this world.

progod

Peace,

Everyone please read these two pages on Wikipedia, they will make things clearer about why the Arabs had motivations to conquer Rome and Persia and even as to why Meccans were using an Aramaic derived script instead of the traditionally Ethiopic South Arabic scripts

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghassanids

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakhmids

You can also check out the articles at http//www.geocities.com/khutbahs/
especially Part 19 From Quraish to Bani Umayya, which is further down in the page.

Godbless,
Anwar

ayman

Peace G. Omar,

Christians have called Muslims by all manner of names, "Muhammadans" perhaps being the most prominent. I'm not sure even Muslims themselves referred to themselves as such at this time. As far as I understand "Muhagarye" is an Arabic word meaning those who emigrate (as in Hijra). To my knowledge Muslims were the ones that conquered Eastern Rome and with the help of its opressed, the Jews and different Christian sects. I doubt there would have been many pagans left at this time though.

What I presented was an overview of the record of the people who were conquered. We can sit here today some 1400 years later and speculate. The fact remains that there is no record from the era of a group calling itself "Muslims". So we can't really say that "Muslims" conquered anyone and this goes against the very meaning of the common noun "muslim".

Pagans were certainly still left and flourishing at the time. For example, we hear from manuscripts about mundane things such as how the conquering pagans burry their dead wrapped in fancy golden clothes and decorations. This is not the practice of monotheists. Also, we know for certain and we can empirically verify that the traditional stone symbols such as the black cube and the black stone are pagan relics. For more info, please see

http//www.free-minds.org/articles/history/ayman1.htm

Paganism reemerged under sectarian Islam after Muhammed exactly like it reemerged under Christianity after Jesus. It was simply molded into a new form.

The taxes you talk about must be the Jizyia which was in substitution for being exempted from military service which mainly Jews and Muslims performed. I am sure this was not about empire building but in response to the Quranic injunction to fight against oppression as "Oppression is worse than killing? and against those who make mischief in this world.

We can speculate about what Jizya is, but the fact remains that a "religious tax" no matter what it is called is a form of oppression. On the other hand, I am pretty sure that the "jizya" talked about in the great reading is not an oppression. Therefore, it cannot be what traditionalists claim.

Peace,

Ayman

ayman

Peace Anwar,

Everyone please read these two pages on Wikipedia, they will make things clearer about why the Arabs had motivations to conquer Rome and Persia and even as to why Meccans were using an Aramaic derived script instead of the traditionally Ethiopic South Arabic scripts
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghassanids
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakhmids
You can also check out the articles at http//www.geocities.com/khutbahs/
especially Part 19 From Quraish to Bani Umayya, which is further down in the page.

There is nothing in there about proving that Meccans even existed let alone what script they used. No one ever proved that a pre-quranic town named Mecca existed and I am certain that no one ever will. So any discussion about "Meccans" or "what script Meccans used" is as pointless as one about why "little green men were using an Aramaic derived script instead of the traditionally Ethiopic South Arabic scripts". One first has to prove that little green men existed.

Peace,

Ayman

progod

Ayman,

I know that you do not believe in the city of Mecca/Maca/Makkah. You deny it's presence in the Quran by ignoring case endings in the Quran and saying they have no import in CA (Classical Arabic). As you know I totally disagree with you in this and oppose your assertion that case endings are of no import (and basically invented by Persian Arabic language grammarians).I don't want to get into a knock down drag out with you on this issue because I am clear on your position and you are clear on mine. However, for those who do believe in the exisitence (or even the possible existence) of a Mecca/Maca/Makka (and the last prophet's origin here) and are considering your arguments, I think this fills in some big holes. (I think it is the ancient town the Greeks mentioned as Macaroba). Good day.

Godbless,
Anwar

G_Omar

Peace G. Omar,

What I presented was an overview of the record of the people who were conquered. We can sit here today some 1400 years later and speculate. The fact remains that there is no record from the era of a group calling itself "Muslims". So we can't really say that "Muslims" conquered anyone and this goes against the very meaning of the common noun "muslim".

Peace Ayman

How do you account for the vast Muslim empires if there was no conquest by Muslims?

Pagans were certainly still left and flourishing at the time. For example, we hear from manuscripts about mundane things such as how the conquering pagans burry their dead wrapped in fancy golden clothes and decorations. This is not the practice of monotheists. Also, we know for certain and we can empirically verify that the traditional stone symbols such as the black cube and the black stone are pagan relics. For more info, please see

http//www.free-minds.org/articles/history/ayman1.htm

OK I'll take your word for that.

Paganism reemerged under sectarian Islam after Muhammed exactly like it reemerged under Christianity after Jesus. It was simply molded into a new form.

We can speculate about what Jizya is, but the fact remains that a "religious tax" no matter what it is called is a form of oppression. On the other hand, I am pretty sure that the "jizya" talked about in the great reading is not an oppression. Therefore, it cannot be what traditionalists claim.

Why do you call Jizya a "religious" tax? It was a substitution for military service. Any one, from what ever religion, who served in the army needed to pay no Jizya.

farida

Salaam to all

I have read many of Ayman's articles with interest and it's because of the contributions by Ayman and Layth that I decided to join this forum. I will admit that I do not have as much knowledge as many in this forum have but I have read that the best Era in the history of recent humanity was the Muslim Golden rule and I have no doubt that Muslims did at one time nearly inherit the world.
Muslims of Spain were called Moors and they contributed greatly to the studies of science economics and humanity. But they were replaced by others as they fell from grace and todays Muslims have lost so much confidence in them that they deny all the good done by previous generations.
According to one professor of Law Jizya tax was far more just than the treatment minorities get nowadays in the name of equality and personally if I would be willing to pay a Jizya in return for getting the same right as the native English in the UK.
As we all say we are not to judge any one so what they did was their time and their generation; we will not be asked about their deed we would only be asked about what we do and how we left our mark on this earth.

I ask nearly everyday to Allah swt to unfold this mystery of how Muslims went so wrong and especially about Darulsalaam (Jerusalem) which was supposed to be a city of peace yet so much voilence is connected to that place.
Insha'Allah I will come to know about it either before I die or in the afterworld

Best regards

farida

Peace,

Everyone please read these two pages on Wikipedia, they will make things clearer about why the Arabs had motivations to conquer Rome and Persia and even as to why Meccans were using an Aramaic derived script instead of the traditionally Ethiopic South Arabic scripts

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghassanids

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakhmids

You can also check out the articles at http//www.geocities.com/khutbahs/
especially Part 19 From Quraish to Bani Umayya, which is further down in the page.

Godbless,
Anwar

Salaam to all

Enemies of Islam have used all their resources to defame Islam and most of their allegations about early Muslims were refuted by other learned non Muslim historians but sadly it?s "the Muslims" who seems to have a lot of bad things to say about the early Muslims..
We are told to do research and reflect and we need to be open minded and be just.
Let's study deeply what went wrong especially with the alleged civil war, which supposedly led to two major sects in Islam
Wikipedia is a new trend and anyone can add posts there without thorough research done.

Best regards

ayman

Peace G.Omar,

How do you account for the vast Muslim empires if there was no conquest by Muslims?

There were no Muslim empires. It was only later, during the Abbassid era when the word "muslim" lost its meaning and became a meaningless label that the empire was named "Muslim empire".

OK I'll take your word for that.

You don't have to take my word. If you are in London and you are walking down the street and suddenly you come across a bunch of half naked guys spinning around a black stone cube and kissing a black stone in one of its corners then you would surely think that you stumbled upon some weird pagan cult. This is your god-given natural instinctive reaction. What is the difference between this and what is going on in Mecca? Nothing!

Why do you call Jizya a "religious" tax? It was a substitution for military service. Any one, from what ever religion, who served in the army needed to pay no Jizya.

As I said, we can sit back and speculate 1400 years later but certainly according to the great reading (see 929), "a substitution for military service" is not what it means. Here is my translation of 929 (and please feel free to provide your own translation)

Fight those who don't have faith in the god nor in the ending day and do not restrict what the god and his messenger have restricted and do not obligate the true obligation from those who were given the book until they are given the retaliation with power while they are diminished.

The conquerors and empire builders took this word from 929 and twisted it to make it into a religious tax for their profit. Let?s not do the same by making it into "a substitution for military service" despite that ?substitution for military service" is not even implied by 929. In fact, no translation that I know of even remotely implies that it has anything to so with ?substitution for military service"

009.029
YUSUFALI Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
KHALIFA You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth - among those who received the scripture - until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly.

Peace,

Ayman

G_Omar

Peace G.Omar,

There were no Muslim empires. It was only later, during the Abbassid era when the word "muslim" lost its meaning and became a meaningless label that the empire was named "Muslim empire".

You don't have to take my word. If you are in London and you are walking down the street and suddenly you come across a bunch of half naked guys spinning around a black stone cube and kissing a black stone in one of its corners then you would surely think that you stumbled upon some weird pagan cult. This is your god-given natural instinctive reaction. What is the difference between this and what is going on in Mecca? Nothing!

As I said, we can sit back and speculate 1400 years later but certainly according to the great reading (see 929), "a substitution for military service" is not what it means. Here is my translation of 929 (and please feel free to provide your own translation)

Fight those who don't have faith in the god nor in the ending day and do not restrict what the god and his messenger have restricted and do not obligate the true obligation from those who were given the book until they are given the retaliation with power while they are diminished.

The conquerors and empire builders took this word from 929 and twisted it to make it into a religious tax for their profit. Let?s not do the same by making it into "a substitution for military service" despite that ?substitution for military service" is not even implied by 929. In fact, no translation that I know of even remotely implies that it has anything to so with ?substitution for military service"

009.029
YUSUFALI Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
KHALIFA You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth - among those who received the scripture - until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly.

Peace,

Ayman

Peace Ayman.

I have no wish to quibble with you as I respect your learning too much. I base my interpretation of Jiziya not on a translation of the Quran but on texts by people of the book in Spain during the muslim era where those who served in the army were clearly exempt from paying this tax.

farida

Peace G.Omar,

There were no Muslim empires. It was only later, during the Abbassid era when the word "muslim" lost its meaning and became a meaningless label that the empire was named "Muslim empire".

You don't have to take my word. If you are in London and you are walking down the street and suddenly you come across a bunch of half naked guys spinning around a black stone cube and kissing a black stone in one of its corners then you would surely think that you stumbled upon some weird pagan cult. This is your god-given natural instinctive reaction. What is the difference between this and what is going on in Mecca? Nothing!

As I said, we can sit back and speculate 1400 years later but certainly according to the great reading (see 929), "a substitution for military service" is not what it means. Here is my translation of 929 (and please feel free to provide your own translation)

Fight those who don't have faith in the god nor in the ending day and do not restrict what the god and his messenger have restricted and do not obligate the true obligation from those who were given the book until they are given the retaliation with power while they are diminished.

The conquerors and empire builders took this word from 929 and twisted it to make it into a religious tax for their profit. Let?s not do the same by making it into "a substitution for military service" despite that ?substitution for military service" is not even implied by 929. In fact, no translation that I know of even remotely implies that it has anything to so with ?substitution for military service"

009.029
YUSUFALI Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
KHALIFA You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth - among those who received the scripture - until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly.

Peace,

Ayman

Salaam Ayman

As I said earlier I am not as knowledgeable as many of you, in History especially. I have two questions here.

Historians refer to Abdul Rahman?s period as a truly Golden Era. He was sole survivor of the Abbasid slaughter of the Umayyads. His rule in Spain established the most modern way of life, which included not only introduction of musical instruments, dance and art but also research in science economics etc. Was he a follower of Qur?an only as he was criticised by fanatics later?
Seeing that it was sons of Hind who became the Umayyads I wonder if Hind was deliberately depicted as an evil woman????

The term ?Muslim empire? is used by westerners when they talk of the different empires. Muslims had pockets of rule (with lots of differences), but to outsiders it may have appeared as one Muslim Empire?
Mu Openion
Regarding Jizya I tried to understand your explanation Ayman but it does not seem to make much sense to me. I have in front of me excellent Yaqb.org and different interpretation and with my limited knowledge of Arabic I believe that Jizya was introduced soon after Muslims were asked to bar idol worshpper from the Sacred Mosque 0928
In verse 0929 the people concerned were people of the book who were given commandment in their books to contribute Zakah in the community and if the people of the book failed to follow their Deen which they were suppose to establish then, in compensation they should pay Jizya ?yes it was not something in return for military service but the fact remains that whether we like it or not Jezya was to be paid if people of the books ignored their own just law and that is why many became Muslims and many who paid Jizya reached prominent position and enjoyed full protection from the state.
Today?s minorities appear to have equal human rights but this so called Civilised Era is the one where, although there are no apparent slaves, nations are enslaved and the poor work like slaves to provide luxuries from coca to designer clothes.
Best regards

progod

Peace,

Farida, whatever. You didn't even read what was on Wikipedia, because it was about the Arabs BEFORE Islam. It didn't even address Muslims. If you are not knowledgeable then please don't speak. And if you want to be then go read some books about the Arabs before Islam. Also you didn't even comment on the Street Mimbar page. You are going to believe what you want to believe. But I can tell you that the golden age of Islamic empire was due to the convergence of the expertise of many different cultures into one Islamic culture. When Islam flourished is when the leaders encouraged free-thought and research and development and when they fell, both back then and now is when they didn't promote free throught, research and development. Yes Moors were Muslims but that is not the name of the Muslims in Spain. The Moors were a conglomeration of Muslim Berbers tribes and Muslim upper West African tribes who cooperating with the Arabs conquered spain. Again we had a convergence of cultures in one place and a governance that encouraged free-throught, research and development that allowed for flourishing and civilization. When leadership becomes complacent about providing these three things a civilization stops growth. You can see now that Muslims are not big or research and development cultivating it everwhere (some Muslim countries are) and they are even worse when it comes to free-thought. The West has flourished because it has allowed these things. Their fear of Islam and darker peoples still has not kept them from trying to eradicate oppression in the words and dictates of their laws which has coincided with rapid development. Please do not fantasize a thing that you did not experience. There were many periods of intolerance in Islamic empires institutionalized and non-institutional.

Godbless,
Anwar

Samia

Peace,

If you are not knowledgeable then please don't speak.

Salaam Anwar

Please have respect for other members. The forum is not exclusive to "knowledgeable" people, if we can even define who is knowledgeable. This is a learning group.

unknownuser

You don't have to take my word. If you are in London and you are walking down the street and suddenly you come across a bunch of half naked guys spinning around a black stone cube and kissing a black stone in one of its corners then you would surely think that you stumbled upon some weird pagan cult. This is your god-given natural instinctive reaction. What is the difference between this and what is going on in Mecca? Nothing!

Only issue with that is that "ihram" is next to full cover.

As for these "Muslim" empires, the later ones were corrupt to the core. What's with the sultans having harems anyway?

progod

Peace,

Respect and truth are two different things. I wasn't being disrespectful, if so I would have insulted her. I did not do that, but people who are not knowledgeable and admittedly so should stop making judgements so quickly especially without weighing the evidence and reading carefully. Or taking their first impression of anyone, good or bad as their absolute opinion of anyone and everything they have to say, despite the pudding in the cake. Samia, i won't turn this into anything personal but if you have something to say to me you can send me a pm. Do not reproach or give me advice in front of anyone else. Otherwise with your track record with me I'll just take it as the same old combative attitude you've always taken with me. So take your sword and stick it in back in its sheath. I will not respond to you or anything you have to say just as when I talk to you my words bounce off your brain like a tennis ball thrown at a brick wall (with all due respect, and in all truth).

Godbless,
Anwar