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?

[Fatihah]

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?

Response: Islam was not only spread through defense, but to also remove oppression. For there were many times in which the people governed by an unislamic government would request the aid of established islamic government to remove them from oppression. As such, a war would break out between the two governments, and on most occasions, the muslims were successful, thus helping to expand their empire.

[LiamOS]

So Muslims living under Governments who did not agree with them would ask for help in overthrowing the indigenous peoples and establishing a Muslim government?
That's the opposite of peaceful.

[Fatihah]

So Muslims living under Governments who did not agree with them would ask for help in overthrowing the indigenous peoples and establishing a Muslim government?
That's the opposite of peaceful.

Response: I said nothing of the sort. It was non-muslims seeking the help of islamic government to be freed from the oppression of non-islamic government. This is very much aligned with peace.

[LiamOS]

Would you consider the American invasion of Iraq to be 'peaceful'?

[Wyvern]

Or the Russian invasion of Georgia?

[Fatihah]

Would you consider the American invasion of Iraq to be 'peaceful'?

Response: I don't know America's intent, even though I am an American citizen, born and raised. So I can't conclude whether it was an act of peace.

[Fatihah]

Or the Russian invasion of Georgia?

I'm not familiar with the details.

[ChaosBorders]

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

I may not be a fan of what Islam has become, but from what I've read the Islamic governments were pretty good for the time when they started out. Conquering purely in defense or to remove oppression? Doubt it. But by the standards of the day I've always read they pretty decent people to be ruled by.

[McCulloch]

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

I may not be a fan of what Islam has become, but from what I've read the Islamic governments were pretty good for the time when they started out. Conquering purely in defense or to remove oppression? Doubt it. But by the standards of the day I've always read they pretty decent people to be ruled by.

I agree. By the standards of the day, the Muslims were pretty good overlords. That would give their empire stability and strength. But to go from one city to an empire larger than the Roman empire in 140 years by defensive acts alone, not plausible.

History is written by the winners. So I'm quite sure that they put a good spin on their conquests.