The Historical Reality of the Muslim Conquests

Because it is now almost axiomatic for American school textbooks to whitewash all things Islamic (see here for example), it may be instructive to examine one of those aspects that are regularly distorted: the Muslim conquests.

Few events of history are so well documented and attested to as are these conquests, which commenced soon after the death of the Muslim prophet Muhammad (632) and tapered off circa 750. Large swathes of the Old World—from the India in the east, to Spain in the west—were conquered and consolidated by the sword of Islam during this time, with more after (e.g., the Ottoman conquests).

By the standards of history, the reality of these conquests is unassailable, for history proper concerns itself with primary sources; and the Islamic conquests are thoroughly documented. More importantly, the overwhelming majority of primary source materials we rely on do not come from non-Muslims, who might be accused of bias. Rather, the foremost historians bequeathing to posterity thousands of pages of source materials documenting the Islamic conquests were not only Muslims themselves; they were—and still are—regarded by today's Muslims as pious and trustworthy scholars (generically, the ulema).

Among the most authoritative books devoted to recounting the conquests are: Ibn Ishaq's (d. 767) Sira ("Life of Muhammad"), the oldest biography of Muhammad; Waqidi's (d. circa. 820) Maghazi ("Military Campaigns [of the Prophet]"); Baladhuri's (d. 892) Futuh al-Buldan ("Conquests of the Nations"); and Tabari's (d.923) multi-volume Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk, ("History of Prophets and Kings"), which is 40 volumes in the English translation.

Taken together, these accounts (which are primarily based on older accounts—oral and written—tracing back to Muhammad and his successors) provide what was once, and in the Muslim world still is, a famous story: that Allah had perfected religion (Islam) for all humanity; that he commanded his final prophet (Muhammad) and community (Muslims) to spread Islam to the world; and that the latter was/is to accept it either willingly or unwillingly (jihad).

It should be noted that contemporary non-Muslim accounts further validate the facts of the conquests. The writings of the Christian bishop of Jerusalem Sophronius (d.63, for instance, or the chronicles of the Byzantine historian Theophanes (d.75, to name a couple, make clear that Muslims conquered much of what is today called the "Muslim world."

According to the Muslim historical tradition, the majority of non-Muslim peoples of the Old World, not desiring to submit to Islam or its laws (Sharia), fought back, though most were eventually defeated and subsumed.

The first major conquest, renowned for its brutality, occurred in Arabia itself, immediately after Muhammad's death in 632. Many tribes which had only nominally accepted Islam's authority, upon Muhammad's death, figured they could break away; however, Muhammad's successor and first caliph, or successor, Abu Bakr, would have none of that, and proclaimed a jihad against these apostates, known in Arabic as the "Ridda Wars" (or Apostasy Wars). According to the aforementioned historians, tens of thousands of Arabs were put to the sword until their tribes re-submitted to Islam.

The Ridda Wars ended around 634. To keep the Arab Muslims from quarreling, the next caliph, Omar, launched the Muslim conquests: Syria was conquered around 636, Egypt 641, Mesopotamia and the Persian Empire, 650. By the early 8th century, all of north Africa and Spain to the west, and the lands of central Asia and India to the east, were also brought under Islamic suzerainty.

The colorful accounts contained in the Muslim tradition are typified by constant warfare, which normally goes as follows: Muslims go to a new region and offer the inhabitants three choices: 1) submit (i.e., convert) to Islam; 2) live as second-class citizens, or "dhimmis," paying special taxes and accepting several social debilitations; 3) fight to the death.

Centuries later, and partially due to trade, Islam came to be accepted by a few periphery peoples, mostly polytheists and animists, who followed no major religion (e.g., in Indonesia, Somalia), and who currently form the outer fringes of the Islamic world.

Ironically, these exceptions are now portrayed as the rule in America's classrooms: many textbooks suggest or at least imply that most people who converted to Islam did so under no duress, but rather through peaceful contacts with merchants and traders; that they eagerly opted to convert to Islam for the religion's intrinsic appeal, without noting the many debilitations conquered non-Muslims avoided—extra taxes, second-rate social status, enforced humiliation, etc.—by converting to Islam. In fact, in the first century, and due to these debilitations, many conquered peoples sought to convert to Islam only to be rebuffed by the caliphate, which preferred to keep them as subdued—and heavily taxed—subjects, not as Muslim equals.

Meanwhile, as U.S. textbooks equivocate about the Muslim conquests, in the schoolrooms of the Muslim world, the conquests are not only taught as a matter of course, but are glorified: their rapidity and decisiveness are regularly portrayed as evidence that Allah was in fact on the side of the Muslims (and will be again, so long as Muslims uphold their communal duty of waging jihad).

The dissimulation of how Islam was spread in the early centuries contained in Western textbook's mirrors the way the word jihad, once inextricable to the conquests, has also been recast. Whereas the word jihad has throughout the centuries simply meant armed warfare on behalf of Islam, in recent years, American students have been taught the Sufi interpretation of jihad—Sufis make up perhaps one percent of the Islamic world and are often seen as heretics with aberrant interpretations—which portrays jihad as a "spiritual-struggle" against one's vices.

Contrast this definition of jihad with that of an early edition of the venerable Encyclopaedia of Islam. Its opening sentence simply states, "The spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general.… Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam.… Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad [warfare to spread Islam] can be eliminated." Muslim legal manuals written in Arabic are even more explicit.

Likewise, the Islamic conquests narrated in the Muslim histories often mirror the doctrinal obligations laid out in Islam's theological texts—the Koran and Hadith. Muslim historians often justify the actions of the early Islamic invaders by juxtaposing the jihad injunctions found in Islamic scriptures.

It should also be noted that, to Muslims, the Islamic conquests are seen as acts of altruism: they are referred to as futuh, which literally means "openings"—that is, the countries conquered were "opened" for the light of Islam to enter and guide its infidel inhabitants. Thus to Muslims, there is nothing to regret or apologize for concerning the conquests; they are seen as for the good of those who were conquered (i.e., the ancestors of today's Muslims).

In closing, the fact of the Muslim conquests, by all standards of history, is indisputable. Accordingly, just as less than impressive aspects of Western and Christian history, such as the Inquisition or conquest of the Americas, are regularly taught in U.S. textbooks, so too should the Muslim conquests be taught, without apology or fear of being politically incorrect. This is especially so because it concerns history—which has a way of repeating itself when ignored, or worse, whitewashed.

http://www.raymondibrahim.com/11277/the-historical-reality-of-the-muslim-conquests

I thought I would inject a little truth into the atmosphere since especially over here it seems to be so absent.

 

There were NO Muslim armies in India..

Interesting that they took over in 100 years....

 

Let me sustain your input by stating that nothing has changed in Arabia since their conquests in the SEVENTH CENTURY CE, they conquered countries and Islamized them by the sword, and here is proof positive that the emphasis is on the sword... A Sri Lanka woman is decapitated because she opted for Christianity over Islam... Watch the VIDEO very graphic.

http://www.facedl.com/fb/player/waPlayer.swf?VideoID=eekawuueikwixue

 

The quest is for a Pan-Islamic Empire. Always was and still it. They say so.

 

Thats not sri Lanka, and Sri Lanka is not a Muslim country.

 

It is as far as I know the decapitation of a Sri Lakan woman in S. Arabia.
I am open for better researches from your part.

 

Sri Lankan maid abused in Saudi Arabia



http://youtu.be/BNelTgpOzUQ

 

Does the OP have a textbook where it says all the things it says the OP say?

 

There are tons of textbooks. However, they have been relegated to the basement of university libraries. As since in the '70s the Mesa Nostra controlled Middle East Studies Departments at our elite colleges and universities throughout the USA, Canada, Australia, and Europe have been hijacked and co-opted by Saudi and Gulf State Emirate petro-dollars and self-hating Leftists.

Indeed, the reason the media, the political elites on both sides of the political aisle, and the federal government are collectively so incredibly ignorant when it comes to Islam is because they all get their bogus information on Islam from the same exact source, that is those same corrupted Middle East Studies Departments at our elite colleges and universities, and until that that monopoly on information about Islam is finally exposed for what it really is, I would continue to expect the USA to move from one strategic blunder to the next strategic blunder.

Nevertheless, as the author of the article accurately states in the article, the conquest were all copiously documented by Islamic sources and translations of those books are readily available at places like Amazon.com.

Indeed, if you think that Islam is a religion as opposed to a supremacist theo-political totalitarian ideology, then that means that you are practically oblivious, which seems to be the tenor of your question.

In any event, if you wish to read more contemporary scholars, then let me recommend a couple of scholars of Islam for you like the venerable Bat Ye'or and Andrew Bostom. Indeed, Bat Ye'or has wrote numerous ground breaking books on the subject of Islam and Andrew Bostom's book, The Legacy of Jihad – Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims is probably the most definitive book on the subject. There books are available also at amazon.com.

 

So if they're ton of textbooks, name one. The rest of the post was irrelevant.

 

Apparently you are so mentally dysfunctional that you didn't even read the (*)(*)(*)(*) article, as the writer of the article, who happens to be one of the most respected contemporary Islamic scholar in his own right, named several definitive texts in the article. I also provided a link to his website, where you will find numerous scholarly articles that he penned himself.

What...do you believe that there were no Islamic conquest? No harsh and degrading dhimmitude? Do you believe that some bigoted right-winger dreamed it all up out of the blue because he or she doesn't like Muslims? Just how illiterate, ignorant, and narrow-minded are you?

 

But they got their butts stomped when the westerners realized what was going on. Drove them so far back that they are STILL in the pre-middle ages. And they seem perfectly happy with that. We fought this bunch ourselves in the early 1800's. TJefferson would be appalled that we've invited the enemy in and are serving them tea and crumpets.

 

Then how did those 80 million Hindus and10 million Buddhists die? By osmosis?

You are one of the most incompetent taqiyya spewers I have ever run across.

 

Saying Amazon.com means nothing to me. I want a textbook. Give me a textbook name. If it is in the OP, then find it for me.

 

Read the (*)(*)(*)(*) article! I don't cater to ignoramuses, especially lazy ones.

 

You will probably want a used one with the important concepts highlighted for you. Seriously. Why don't you buy a puppy if you want someone to play fetch for you?

 

So you can not produce a textbook name?

If I make a claim, I will back it up with a source. I expect the OP to do the same as well.

 

No...I can give you numerous names of text books and scholars if I want. In fact, I provided two of them for you already in my first posts. Nevertheless, like I said I don't cater to ignoramuses, especially smart ass ignoramuses that are too brainwashed to read the (*)(*)(*)(*) article I provided.

Excuse me, but click the (*)(*)(*)(*) link I provided and re-read my posts. I'm not your slave and I don't cater to ignoramuses.

Nevertheless, if you are too mentally incompetent to know that Islam was spread by the sword, then by all means put your money where your unhinged mouth is and prove it. I would thoroughly enjoy exposing you and making a fool out of you. Although you are probably use to it.

Indeed, you act like you are pissed off at me because Islam was spread by the sword. What grade were you in when you dropped out of school? Or were you expelled?

 

I checked. Multiple times. Tell me the name of the American Textbook the authoer is talking about. Otherwise your argument is null and void.

I'm looking. No textbook name.

1. I'm in 10th grade.
2. I want the American Textbook. Show me where it is. Tell me a paragraph. Let's start with that.

 

OK, That explains a great deal.

Learn lots. Don't believe everything you read.

Come back when you grow up.

 

Then show me where in the OP it says a textbook name. Give me a parahraph, that's all I ask.

 

Morocco ~ invaded by Spain & France several times

Libya & Tunisia ~ invaded by Italy

Algeria ~ invaded by France

Egypt ~ invaded by England

Iraq ~ invaded by England & USA

Iran ~ invaded by England & USA

Chechnya ~ invaded by Russia

Dagestan ~ invaded by Russia



get the picture??

 

This is the tactic of those that do not wish to read or understand the truth. Either a pedantic request for information that has already been given or a request for some particularly written article that the requester will accept as truth according to their world view.

Both tactics are a refusal to actually investigate outside of their world view.

I have Islamic friends here in the States and none of them are much different than I. That said, for 20 years or more I have run into the strain of Islam that wants to conquer the world by any means possible.

It is there, it is real, and it is dangerous. Those that make excuses are just sticking their heads in the sand. The theocratic rule of Islam is uncompromising, cruel, and brutal as depicted in the video earlier. This is what radical Islam wants to bring to you. Other Muslims do not speak out for fear of their own lives because crazy is crazy and being right in the eyes of the west will get you killed.

 

So you have the magical textbook I'm after. What's its name?

I know a few muslims. None of them want to install Sharia on America. The worst got in a debate with my athetist friend. Over religion in general.

Jesus, nows there's a video. Where are these things?

 

That seems to be your problem, you don't pay attention and are looking for a magical book instead of just using your head.