Islam spread defensively ?

[McCulloch]

The Muslims fought in defense. And when the weapon of choice by the attacker is a sword, than it is very logical that one should use a sword in defense, and self-defense does not contradict one's intent for peace.

Islam had remarkable growth during its first 150 years. These came primarily as a result of military conquests.


Light Expansion under Muhammad, 622–632/A.H. 1-11
Medium Expansion during the Rashidun Caliphate, 632–661/A.H. 11-40
Dark Expansion during the Umayyad Caliphate, 661–750/A.H. 40-129

Question for debate: were these conquests the result of purely defensive wars?

[Wyvern]

Response: It is clearly stated in black and white that I was speaking of the crusades and mentioned nothing of any muslim seige. It is clear and you know it. But your persistance in denial orevents you from admitting so. Though it is not unexpected.

Yes you stated the muslim sieges of Constantinople were in direct response to the first crusade even though as I have shown the crusade happened hundreds of years after the sieges of Constantinople. It was you that said the Byzantine empire struck first with the crusade even though that first strike happened hundreds of years after the muslims first besieged Constantinople. If you can't even get your dates right and refuse to be corrected on them then why are you even here?

Response: It's an amazing thing, how you uphold blatant lies as if no can can't see that post 24 clearly mentions nothing of the first muslim seige. The words "muslim seige" are not even there. It clearly speaks of the first crusade. Hence the very words, "first crusade" spelled out clearly in the post. Do you really think the people here are blind and won't notice? Seriously, how do you start a discussion with blatant lies to establish your point and think you're credible at the same time?You need a clue, and a serious one.

They you try to suggest that your reference to the "muslim seiges" are correct. Well, there's the statement. Where's the proof? Where is the proof that the source is correct. Simply saying, "it's true because wikipedia told me so", is not proof at all.

You stated that the muslims attacked as a direct result of the first crusade but I have shown that the muslim attacks came hundreds of years before the first crusade. I have stated my case and backed it up with proof which I have provided you links to see for yourself. Come show me your evidence that refutes what I have proven to be true. So far you have done nothing but say I am wrong but given no evidence to back your claim. I chose Wikipedia because it is an easy source of basic information that is easy to digest but I can use pretty much any source since this is just a matter of dates, which historical source would you prefer me to use?

[Fatihah]

Response: It is clearly stated in black and white that I was speaking of the crusades and mentioned nothing of any muslim seige. It is clear and you know it. But your persistance in denial orevents you from admitting so. Though it is not unexpected.

Yes you stated the muslim sieges of Constantinople were in direct response to the first crusade even though as I have shown the crusade happened hundreds of years after the sieges of Constantinople. It was you that said the Byzantine empire struck first with the crusade even though that first strike happened hundreds of years after the muslims first besieged Constantinople. If you can't even get your dates right and refuse to be corrected on them then why are you even here?

Response: It's an amazing thing, how you uphold blatant lies as if no can can't see that post 24 clearly mentions nothing of the first muslim seige. The words "muslim seige" are not even there. It clearly speaks of the first crusade. Hence the very words, "first crusade" spelled out clearly in the post. Do you really think the people here are blind and won't notice? Seriously, how do you start a discussion with blatant lies to establish your point and think you're credible at the same time?You need a clue, and a serious one.

They you try to suggest that your reference to the "muslim seiges" are correct. Well, there's the statement. Where's the proof? Where is the proof that the source is correct. Simply saying, "it's true because wikipedia told me so", is not proof at all.

You stated that the muslims attacked as a direct result of the first crusade but I have shown that the muslim attacks came hundreds of years before the first crusade. I have stated my case and backed it up with proof which I have provided you links to see for yourself. Come show me your evidence that refutes what I have proven to be true. So far you have done nothing but say I am wrong but given no evidence to back your claim. I chose Wikipedia because it is an easy source of basic information that is easy to digest but I can use pretty much any source since this is just a matter of dates, which historical source would you prefer me to use?

Response: The muslims did attack as a result of the first crusade. However, I never stated that it was the first attack, as you desperately try to insert. Secondly, you bring evidence from sources without proving the source as correct, thus proving nothing. Had you read your own source, you would see that the first conflict between the muslims and the Romans happened before what you suggested. The battle of Tikrik occured before the first attack on Constantinople.

[Wyvern]

Response: It is clearly stated in black and white that I was speaking of the crusades and mentioned nothing of any muslim seige. It is clear and you know it. But your persistance in denial orevents you from admitting so. Though it is not unexpected.

Yes you stated the muslim sieges of Constantinople were in direct response to the first crusade even though as I have shown the crusade happened hundreds of years after the sieges of Constantinople. It was you that said the Byzantine empire struck first with the crusade even though that first strike happened hundreds of years after the muslims first besieged Constantinople. If you can't even get your dates right and refuse to be corrected on them then why are you even here?

Response: It's an amazing thing, how you uphold blatant lies as if no can can't see that post 24 clearly mentions nothing of the first muslim seige. The words "muslim seige" are not even there. It clearly speaks of the first crusade. Hence the very words, "first crusade" spelled out clearly in the post. Do you really think the people here are blind and won't notice? Seriously, how do you start a discussion with blatant lies to establish your point and think you're credible at the same time?You need a clue, and a serious one.

They you try to suggest that your reference to the "muslim seiges" are correct. Well, there's the statement. Where's the proof? Where is the proof that the source is correct. Simply saying, "it's true because wikipedia told me so", is not proof at all.

You stated that the muslims attacked as a direct result of the first crusade but I have shown that the muslim attacks came hundreds of years before the first crusade. I have stated my case and backed it up with proof which I have provided you links to see for yourself. Come show me your evidence that refutes what I have proven to be true. So far you have done nothing but say I am wrong but given no evidence to back your claim. I chose Wikipedia because it is an easy source of basic information that is easy to digest but I can use pretty much any source since this is just a matter of dates, which historical source would you prefer me to use?

Response: The muslims did attack as a result of the first crusade. However, I never stated that it was the first attack, as you desperately try to insert. Secondly, you bring evidence from sources without proving the source as correct, thus proving nothing. Had you read your own source, you would see that the first conflict between the muslims and the Romans happened before what you suggested. The battle of Tikrik occured before the first attack on Constantinople.

You are confusing yourself and the issue, the original question was the sieges of Constantinople by the muslims defensive in nature as you have stated. Now you are trying to bring the Roman empire into this which has nothing to do with the issue. I have provided sources for my information why do you not do the same, provide a link for the battle of Tikrik. All that Google comes up with is the battle for Tikrit in Iraq. You disagree with my sources, fine you name any historical website that deals with ancient history and I will gladly use it for reference. How is it that you conflate the Romans with the Byzantines? although they spawned from the same entity by the time of the founding of islam the Roman empire was in its final death throes while Byzantium was a thriving primarily commercial empire. Or is it in your eyes that both empires are nothing but infidels so they are all the same to you?

[Fatihah]

Response: It is clearly stated in black and white that I was speaking of the crusades and mentioned nothing of any muslim seige. It is clear and you know it. But your persistance in denial orevents you from admitting so. Though it is not unexpected.

Yes you stated the muslim sieges of Constantinople were in direct response to the first crusade even though as I have shown the crusade happened hundreds of years after the sieges of Constantinople. It was you that said the Byzantine empire struck first with the crusade even though that first strike happened hundreds of years after the muslims first besieged Constantinople. If you can't even get your dates right and refuse to be corrected on them then why are you even here?

Response: It's an amazing thing, how you uphold blatant lies as if no can can't see that post 24 clearly mentions nothing of the first muslim seige. The words "muslim seige" are not even there. It clearly speaks of the first crusade. Hence the very words, "first crusade" spelled out clearly in the post. Do you really think the people here are blind and won't notice? Seriously, how do you start a discussion with blatant lies to establish your point and think you're credible at the same time?You need a clue, and a serious one.

They you try to suggest that your reference to the "muslim seiges" are correct. Well, there's the statement. Where's the proof? Where is the proof that the source is correct. Simply saying, "it's true because wikipedia told me so", is not proof at all.

You stated that the muslims attacked as a direct result of the first crusade but I have shown that the muslim attacks came hundreds of years before the first crusade. I have stated my case and backed it up with proof which I have provided you links to see for yourself. Come show me your evidence that refutes what I have proven to be true. So far you have done nothing but say I am wrong but given no evidence to back your claim. I chose Wikipedia because it is an easy source of basic information that is easy to digest but I can use pretty much any source since this is just a matter of dates, which historical source would you prefer me to use?

Response: The muslims did attack as a result of the first crusade. However, I never stated that it was the first attack, as you desperately try to insert. Secondly, you bring evidence from sources without proving the source as correct, thus proving nothing. Had you read your own source, you would see that the first conflict between the muslims and the Romans happened before what you suggested. The battle of Tikrik occured before the first attack on Constantinople.

You are confusing yourself and the issue, the original question was the sieges of Constantinople by the muslims defensive in nature as you have stated. Now you are trying to bring the Roman empire into this which has nothing to do with the issue. I have provided sources for my information why do you not do the same, provide a link for the battle of Tikrik. All that Google comes up with is the battle for Tikrit in Iraq. You disagree with my sources, fine you name any historical website that deals with ancient history and I will gladly use it for reference. How is it that you conflate the Romans with the Byzantines? although they spawned from the same entity by the time of the founding of islam the Roman empire was in its final death throes while Byzantium was a thriving primarily commercial empire. Or is it in your eyes that both empires are nothing but infidels so they are all the same to you?

Response: You have confused yourself. In post 23, you ended the post stating for me t back my claim that islam spread defensively and to remove oppression. That is why in response, I referred to the crusades as an example, as it shows that the Byzantine empire started the crusades. The Romans have very much to do with the issue, because it is you who suggested that the muslims attacked first when in actuality, the muslims were responding in defense from the Romans and Persians, who were aiding tribes to defeat the muslims. An examole is the battle of Tikrit.

And since it is clear that your are limited to resources, then you should desist in claiming your evidence to be correct. For I can name countless of resources in which your computer search may not find. This, and the fact that you can not prove your sources are accurate, discredits you from claiming you have proven your point. The best for you to do is be a skeptic. There's nothing wrong in being a skeptic and pin pointing all that you see to be an error, even in my logic or resources, or questioning logic to find the truth. I have no problem with your sources. Use whatever you fill necessary. What I'm questioning is your logic if how you concluded your sources as true.

Btw, you can google the battle of Tikrik in 637 A.D. to get information. However, I do not claim that all of what you'll find will be accurate, but just some info on the issue. What you find that may be valid for your stance or questionable can be brought forward for further discussion and an open-mind to the truth.

[Wyvern]

Response: You have confused yourself. In post 23, you ended the post stating for me t back my claim that islam spread defensively and to remove oppression. That is why in response, I referred to the crusades as an example, as it shows that the Byzantine empire started the crusades. The Romans have very much to do with the issue, because it is you who suggested that the muslims attacked first when in actuality, the muslims were responding in defense from the Romans and Persians, who were aiding tribes to defeat the muslims. An examole is the battle of Tikrit.

Again you are confusing yourself and the issue. In post 23 I guess you missed the four links I posted in direct reference to the sieges of Constantinople. I guess you also missed that this conversation started with my question about the sieges of Constantinople fitting your ideas about islams expansion. I specifically made the question very narrow so you would not wander as it turns out you did anyways. As far as the Romans and Persians go once you can find some kind of justification that if either of those two attack it is okay to then go and attack the byzantines you might be onto something but until that time you are simply muddying the waters. You mention this battle of Tikrit which in your previous post you named Tikrik, you can't get the name correct and you can't find any proof of your claims until you do this claim is less than nothing.

And since it is clear that your are limited to resources, then you should desist in claiming your evidence to be correct. For I can name countless of resources in which your computer search may not find. This, and the fact that you can not prove your sources are accurate, discredits you from claiming you have proven your point. The best for you to do is be a skeptic. There's nothing wrong in being a skeptic and pin pointing all that you see to be an error, even in my logic or resources, or questioning logic to find the truth. I have no problem with your sources. Use whatever you fill necessary. What I'm questioning is your logic if how you concluded your sources as true.

You have never named any of your resources or provided anything even close to proof of what you have said. If you can name countless resources lets see some of them. I have asked you if you don't like the source I used then name the source you want me to use and I will use it, instead you give me this.

Btw, you can google the battle of Tikrik in 637 A.D. to get information. However, I do not claim that all of what you'll find will be accurate, but just some info on the issue. What you find that may be valid for your stance or questionable can be brought forward for further discussion and an open-mind to the truth.

You can't even keep the name straight in the same post and I did Google the name you gave and came up with nothing but references to Tikrit. If you found a reference to it please provide a link. Why is it you don't think you have to give proof of your claims but do nothing but complain when others do in fact provide backing for their claims.

[Fatihah]

Response: You have confused yourself. In post 23, you ended the post stating for me t back my claim that islam spread defensively and to remove oppression. That is why in response, I referred to the crusades as an example, as it shows that the Byzantine empire started the crusades. The Romans have very much to do with the issue, because it is you who suggested that the muslims attacked first when in actuality, the muslims were responding in defense from the Romans and Persians, who were aiding tribes to defeat the muslims. An examole is the battle of Tikrit.

Again you are confusing yourself and the issue. In post 23 I guess you missed the four links I posted in direct reference to the sieges of Constantinople. I guess you also missed that this conversation started with my question about the sieges of Constantinople fitting your ideas about islams expansion. I specifically made the question very narrow so you would not wander as it turns out you did anyways. As far as the Romans and Persians go once you can find some kind of justification that if either of those two attack it is okay to then go and attack the byzantines you might be onto something but until that time you are simply muddying the waters. You mention this battle of Tikrit which in your previous post you named Tikrik, you can't get the name correct and you can't find any proof of your claims until you do this claim is less than nothing.

And since it is clear that your are limited to resources, then you should desist in claiming your evidence to be correct. For I can name countless of resources in which your computer search may not find. This, and the fact that you can not prove your sources are accurate, discredits you from claiming you have proven your point. The best for you to do is be a skeptic. There's nothing wrong in being a skeptic and pin pointing all that you see to be an error, even in my logic or resources, or questioning logic to find the truth. I have no problem with your sources. Use whatever you fill necessary. What I'm questioning is your logic if how you concluded your sources as true.

You have never named any of your resources or provided anything even close to proof of what you have said. If you can name countless resources lets see some of them. I have asked you if you don't like the source I used then name the source you want me to use and I will use it, instead you give me this.

Btw, you can google the battle of Tikrik in 637 A.D. to get information. However, I do not claim that all of what you'll find will be accurate, but just some info on the issue. What you find that may be valid for your stance or questionable can be brought forward for further discussion and an open-mind to the truth.

You can't even keep the name straight in the same post and I did Google the name you gave and came up with nothing but references to Tikrit. If you found a reference to it please provide a link. Why is it you don't think you have to give proof of your claims but do nothing but complain when others do in fact provide backing for their claims.

Response: For starters, the word is Tikrit. The other was obviously a typo. So let's not start playing the typo game, as your spelling of the word "although" in post 33 should have been capitalised. Secondly, your original question was in post 23 which clearly states for me to back my claim that islam spread defensively and to remove oppression. The simple fact that you can't quote a question concerning Constantinople before post 23 is evidence to the fact. Lastly, if you can not show your are valid, then you've proven nothing. While from your own evidence, it shows that the Byzantine empire started the crusades, not the muslims. Thus your own evidence supports my position.

[Wyvern]

Response: For starters, the word is Tikrit. The other was obviously a typo. So let's not start playing the typo game, as your spelling of the word "although" in post 33 should have been capitalised. Secondly, your original question was in post 23 which clearly states for me to back my claim that islam spread defensively and to remove oppression. The simple fact that you can't quote a question concerning Constantinople before post 23 is evidence to the fact. Lastly, if you can not show your are valid, then you've proven nothing. While from your own evidence, it shows that the Byzantine empire started the crusades, not the muslims. Thus your own evidence supports my position.

And you still fail to provide any information of this battle of Tikrit so it still amounts to you giving nothing. Debate is an exercise in the art of the give and take if it is going to work. You on the other hand only want to take and never have you given anything. You would not even address the question about Constantinople in an honest manner, instead you have to mutilate it beyond comprehension. In so doing you have exposed how ugly islam can truly be. Truth doesn't matter to you or maybe it's just because I'm nothing but an infidel so you think anything you say to one of us is okay.

You can not call my evidence invalid for my uses then use my very sources for your own purposes and they become valid. If you know so little and refuse to read the information given what is the point of arguing, more can be gotten by ramming my head into a brick wall. My source which you use does not say Byzantium started the Crusades plus the issue at hand happened hundreds of years prior to the crusades and yet you still try to use it as reason for attacking Constantinople. Then you try to say the Romans attacking is sufficient reason to attack Byzantium. Looks like your claim doesn't hold water and you are desperately taking stabs in the dark. Maybe if you would have actually read the articles and bothered to comprehend them you could have gotten a decent counter argument. It really is difficult to win an argument on a subject if you refuse to learn anything about it and falling back on blaming everything on the crusades doesn't work on something that happened nearly a half millenium prior to the crusades.

[Joshua Patrick]

referred to the crusades as an example, as it shows that the Byzantine empire started the crusades.

I thought it was us Catholics who started the "some" of the Crusade, on the Pope's orders after the Byzantine Empire was under constant attack by them Turks?

My gosh, you mean I went crusading all them years ago, without the Pope telling me to. Outrageous!

[Fatihah]

Response: For starters, the word is Tikrit. The other was obviously a typo. So let's not start playing the typo game, as your spelling of the word "although" in post 33 should have been capitalised. Secondly, your original question was in post 23 which clearly states for me to back my claim that islam spread defensively and to remove oppression. The simple fact that you can't quote a question concerning Constantinople before post 23 is evidence to the fact. Lastly, if you can not show your are valid, then you've proven nothing. While from your own evidence, it shows that the Byzantine empire started the crusades, not the muslims. Thus your own evidence supports my position.

And you still fail to provide any information of this battle of Tikrit so it still amounts to you giving nothing. Debate is an exercise in the art of the give and take if it is going to work. You on the other hand only want to take and never have you given anything. You would not even address the question about Constantinople in an honest manner, instead you have to mutilate it beyond comprehension. In so doing you have exposed how ugly islam can truly be. Truth doesn't matter to you or maybe it's just because I'm nothing but an infidel so you think anything you say to one of us is okay.

You can not call my evidence invalid for my uses then use my very sources for your own purposes and they become valid. If you know so little and refuse to read the information given what is the point of arguing, more can be gotten by ramming my head into a brick wall. My source which you use does not say Byzantium started the Crusades plus the issue at hand happened hundreds of years prior to the crusades and yet you still try to use it as reason for attacking Constantinople. Then you try to say the Romans attacking is sufficient reason to attack Byzantium. Looks like your claim doesn't hold water and you are desperately taking stabs in the dark. Maybe if you would have actually read the articles and bothered to comprehend them you could have gotten a decent counter argument. It really is difficult to win an argument on a subject if you refuse to learn anything about it and falling back on blaming everything on the crusades doesn't work on something that happened nearly a half millenium prior to the crusades.

Response: And once again, we see you fail utterly to validate your claim, which only further supports mine. Then you make the false assertion that the Byzantine emire didn't start the crusades when your own sources say otherwise. This is complete desperation. As for tikrit, I've specifically told you what to type in to get info on the subject, so I did present my evidence. Your refusal or inability to do so is your fault, not mine. Maybe if you actually read your own articles and actually studied the topic, instead of doing copy and paste jobs or providing links on things which you don't know, then the dialogue would go a lot smoother. Debate is not just about give and take, it's about proof and evidence. This basic concept you clearly fail to grasp. Just because you provided a source does not mean you've proven the source. You have yet to prove that your source is true, thus you've proven nothing.

[Fatihah]

referred to the crusades as an example, as it shows that the Byzantine empire started the crusades.

I thought it was us Catholics who started the "some" of the Crusade, on the Pope's orders after the Byzantine Empire was under constant attack by them Turks?

My gosh, you mean I went crusading all them years ago, without the Pope telling me to. Outrageous!

Response: Yes. Pope Urban II did call for the crusades but the Pope himself did not crusade. It was the byzantine empire who aided in attacking the muslims alongside many warriors from other nations in the name of their religion to defeat the spread of islam.