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 spread through defense by conquering those who waged war on them. Since it was an act of defense, then its expansion is a result of defense. Again, not all wars were defensive wars, but wars in which to remove oppression upon requests of those being oppressed by the nations they were governed by. I do not know of any links. My knowledge comes the old-fashioned way, reading of books. Not all info is on the net. However, a simple request in your search engine on the expansion of the islamic empire will help to bring a lot of information. What you feel is worth discussing, you can surely bring to the table, and we can compare and study.

Who were the muslims defending during the sieges of Constantinople?

Response: Themselves.

Care to expand on that a bit? Such as give a bit of background as to why the muslims were defending thenselves from a nation that did not attack them or for that matter which siege of Constantinople you are talking about since there was more than one. Maybe you should start getting some knowledge the new fangled way if this is the sort of response you give with old fashioned knowledge or maybe you need a better class of book.

[Fatihah]

Response: It spread through defense by conquering those who waged war on them. Since it was an act of defense, then its expansion is a result of defense. Again, not all wars were defensive wars, but wars in which to remove oppression upon requests of those being oppressed by the nations they were governed by. I do not know of any links. My knowledge comes the old-fashioned way, reading of books. Not all info is on the net. However, a simple request in your search engine on the expansion of the islamic empire will help to bring a lot of information. What you feel is worth discussing, you can surely bring to the table, and we can compare and study.

Who were the muslims defending during the sieges of Constantinople?

Response: Themselves.

Care to expand on that a bit? Such as give a bit of background as to why the muslims were defending thenselves from a nation that did not attack them or for that matter which siege of Constantinople you are talking about since there was more than one. Maybe you should start getting some knowledge the new fangled way if this is the sort of response you give with old fashioned knowledge or maybe you need a better class of book.

Response: Do you care to desist from such hypocrisy? Trolling the forum requesting proof of myself yet failing to present even an argument yourself? Where's your proof that the nation did not attack them? Start presenting and backing your own claims or at least reread an elementary phonics book on what common logic is.

[Wyvern]

Response: It spread through defense by conquering those who waged war on them. Since it was an act of defense, then its expansion is a result of defense. Again, not all wars were defensive wars, but wars in which to remove oppression upon requests of those being oppressed by the nations they were governed by. I do not know of any links. My knowledge comes the old-fashioned way, reading of books. Not all info is on the net. However, a simple request in your search engine on the expansion of the islamic empire will help to bring a lot of information. What you feel is worth discussing, you can surely bring to the table, and we can compare and study.

Who were the muslims defending during the sieges of Constantinople?

Response: Themselves.

Care to expand on that a bit? Such as give a bit of background as to why the muslims were defending thenselves from a nation that did not attack them or for that matter which siege of Constantinople you are talking about since there was more than one. Maybe you should start getting some knowledge the new fangled way if this is the sort of response you give with old fashioned knowledge or maybe you need a better class of book.

Response: Do you care to desist from such hypocrisy? Trolling the forum requesting proof of myself yet failing to present even an argument yourself? Where's your proof that the nation did not attack them? Start presenting and backing your own claims or at least reread an elementary phonics book on what common logic is.

You asked for issues which could be discussed in this thread, I came up with one which you gave a one word reply to when asked to expand on your answer you get all huffy about it as if you are to good to give a better answer. So fine just for you here is some background on the various muslim sieges of Constantinople.

First muslim siege of Constantinople. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_ ... ntinople

Second muslim siege of Constantinople. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_ ... 0%93718)

First Ottoman siege of Constantinople. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_ ... e_(1422)

Second Ottoman siege of Constantinople. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople

Constantinople was such an important and profitable piece of property that just about every power in the region had attacked it at one time or another. Nowhere does it say that Constantinople attacked first or that some group within Constantinople asked for muslim assistance. Constantinople at the time was the gateway into Europe and as with any empire the Caliphate had to grow or it would and as history shows eventually did collapse in on itself. The inability of the early Caliphate to take Constantinople halted islams advance into Europe and caused it to instead spread out on its east-west axis instead.

You have made the claim that islam spread only defensively in that they would attack only when attacked themselves or if some group within the offending nation asked for islamic assistance, this is your claim and I am asking for you to substantiate this claim with evidence.

[Fatihah]

Response: It spread through defense by conquering those who waged war on them. Since it was an act of defense, then its expansion is a result of defense. Again, not all wars were defensive wars, but wars in which to remove oppression upon requests of those being oppressed by the nations they were governed by. I do not know of any links. My knowledge comes the old-fashioned way, reading of books. Not all info is on the net. However, a simple request in your search engine on the expansion of the islamic empire will help to bring a lot of information. What you feel is worth discussing, you can surely bring to the table, and we can compare and study.

Who were the muslims defending during the sieges of Constantinople?

Response: Themselves.

Care to expand on that a bit? Such as give a bit of background as to why the muslims were defending thenselves from a nation that did not attack them or for that matter which siege of Constantinople you are talking about since there was more than one. Maybe you should start getting some knowledge the new fangled way if this is the sort of response you give with old fashioned knowledge or maybe you need a better class of book.

Response: Do you care to desist from such hypocrisy? Trolling the forum requesting proof of myself yet failing to present even an argument yourself? Where's your proof that the nation did not attack them? Start presenting and backing your own claims or at least reread an elementary phonics book on what common logic is.

You asked for issues which could be discussed in this thread, I came up with one which you gave a one word reply to when asked to expand on your answer you get all huffy about it as if you are to good to give a better answer. So fine just for you here is some background on the various muslim sieges of Constantinople.

First muslim siege of Constantinople. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_ ... ntinople

Second muslim siege of Constantinople. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_ ... 0%93718)

First Ottoman siege of Constantinople. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_ ... e_(1422)

Second Ottoman siege of Constantinople. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople

Constantinople was such an important and profitable piece of property that just about every power in the region had attacked it at one time or another. Nowhere does it say that Constantinople attacked first or that some group within Constantinople asked for muslim assistance. Constantinople at the time was the gateway into Europe and as with any empire the Caliphate had to grow or it would and as history shows eventually did collapse in on itself. The inability of the early Caliphate to take Constantinople halted islams advance into Europe and caused it to instead spread out on its east-west axis instead.

You have made the claim that islam spread only defensively in that they would attack only when attacked themselves or if some group within the offending nation asked for islamic assistance, this is your claim and I am asking for you to substantiate this claim with evidence.

Response: And your own sources tell you that Constantinople was the Capital of the Byzantine empire, the same empire who initiated the very first crusade. Thus it was an act of defense, as it was the Byzantine empire who strucj first and continued to make attacks. Even when they lost, they never wished to enter into any treaty of peace. Further proof of the fact that it was defense is that even in the present day, we can see the feeble muslim countries, as a result of the relentless attacks of the Byzantine empire crushing the Ottoman empire as it adapted to the new western world we know today.

[Wyvern]

Response: And your own sources tell you that Constantinople was the Capital of the Byzantine empire, the same empire who initiated the very first crusade. Thus it was an act of defense, as it was the Byzantine empire who strucj first and continued to make attacks. Even when they lost, they never wished to enter into any treaty of peace. Further proof of the fact that it was defense is that even in the present day, we can see the feeble muslim countries, as a result of the relentless attacks of the Byzantine empire crushing the Ottoman empire as it adapted to the new western world we know today.

Please bother to do the most basic research. The first crusade started in the year 1096 the first two islamic sieges of Constantinople happened in the years 674-678 and 717-718, hundreds of years prior to the crusades. Also the first crusade by your definition was a defensive campaign since it was lauched by the Roman pope after an appeal for aid from the Byzantine emperor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade

All this information is easily obtainable and you making such basic mistakes as dates in favor of your ingrained indoctrination is troubling. Please take the time to read some of the links which I have provided in that they will give you background information on the subject at hand if you do not already know anything about it.

Also your characterization of the Ottoman empire is mistaken. Yes by the time WW1 came around they were known as the sick man of Europe and for good reason. You have to realize the Ottoman empire of 1918 was not the Ottoman empire of 1300, at its outset the Ottoman empire was a power to be reckoned with and in fact did conquer Constantinople in 1453, something which the might of the Caliphate could not do after two tries and hundreds of thousands of casualties.

Yet another point the present state of muslim countries is more an outgrowth of the age of empires in Europe than anything Constantinople did in fact many present muslim countries were created by the European powers during the age of empires from the 16th-20th centuries. If anything the state of muslim countries also reinforces my point that an empire must expand or stagnate once the Caliphate could no longer expand it tore itself apart. The Islamic world was once a shining beacon of learning and tolerance but once the expansion stopped so did the learning and tolerance and just as christianity was leaving its own dark age islam was entering one of its own which from what I can see they never exited.

[Fatihah]

Response: And your own sources tell you that Constantinople was the Capital of the Byzantine empire, the same empire who initiated the very first crusade. Thus it was an act of defense, as it was the Byzantine empire who strucj first and continued to make attacks. Even when they lost, they never wished to enter into any treaty of peace. Further proof of the fact that it was defense is that even in the present day, we can see the feeble muslim countries, as a result of the relentless attacks of the Byzantine empire crushing the Ottoman empire as it adapted to the new western world we know today.

Please bother to do the most basic research. The first crusade started in the year 1096 the first two islamic sieges of Constantinople happened in the years 674-678 and 717-718, hundreds of years prior to the crusades. Also the first crusade by your definition was a defensive campaign since it was lauched by the Roman pope after an appeal for aid from the Byzantine emperor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade

All this information is easily obtainable and you making such basic mistakes as dates in favor of your ingrained indoctrination is troubling. Please take the time to read some of the links which I have provided in that they will give you background information on the subject at hand if you do not already know anything about it.

Also your characterization of the Ottoman empire is mistaken. Yes by the time WW1 came around they were known as the sick man of Europe and for good reason. You have to realize the Ottoman empire of 1918 was not the Ottoman empire of 1300, at its outset the Ottoman empire was a power to be reckoned with and in fact did conquer Constantinople in 1453, something which the might of the Caliphate could not do after two tries and hundreds of thousands of casualties.

Yet another point the present state of muslim countries is more an outgrowth of the age of empires in Europe than anything Constantinople did in fact many present muslim countries were created by the European powers during the age of empires from the 16th-20th centuries. If anything the state of muslim countries also reinforces my point that an empire must expand or stagnate once the Caliphate could no longer expand it tore itself apart. The Islamic world was once a shining beacon of learning and tolerance but once the expansion stopped so did the learning and tolerance and just as christianity was leaving its own dark age islam was entering one of its own which from what I can see they never exited.

Response: I never even mentioned any date throughout my whole post. Once again you make a blatantcinterpolation this time and try to claim some type of credibility from it, but instead onlychelp to further embarrass yourself. So instead of making remarks of knowing basic information, perhaps a basic understanding of comprehension on your part will help you from further mishaps. Your own references also confirm that the first crusade was started by the Byzantine empire.

Secondly, you are mistaken by the Ottoman empire, as if everyone else like you who speaks as ifcthey're knowledgable about history when in all actually, you simply copy and paste from wikipedia and other sources with no evidence of whether the sources are correct. Wikipedia itself can confirm that the empires and land controlled by muslims supercedes that of the Byzantine empire. Had the muslims been driven by conquest, all of Europe could have easily been subdued. Yet we know that the majority of muslims reside in Asia, which know muslim army ever went. The muslims ruled India for 1,000 of years and Spain for almost 800. Yet the emipres did not expand beyond what they controlled. This shows a desire not to conquer all. While the European forces are responsible for the fall of Spain, India and the Ottoman empire, responsible for the triangle trade of slaves to strengthen their rule ans enslavement of people. So when we ask the question of whether muslims fought in defense or to remove oppression, the evidence is quite clear.

[Wyvern]

Response: And your own sources tell you that Constantinople was the Capital of the Byzantine empire, the same empire who initiated the very first crusade. Thus it was an act of defense, as it was the Byzantine empire who strucj first and continued to make attacks. Even when they lost, they never wished to enter into any treaty of peace. Further proof of the fact that it was defense is that even in the present day, we can see the feeble muslim countries, as a result of the relentless attacks of the Byzantine empire crushing the Ottoman empire as it adapted to the new western world we know today.

Please bother to do the most basic research. The first crusade started in the year 1096 the first two islamic sieges of Constantinople happened in the years 674-678 and 717-718, hundreds of years prior to the crusades. Also the first crusade by your definition was a defensive campaign since it was lauched by the Roman pope after an appeal for aid from the Byzantine emperor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade

All this information is easily obtainable and you making such basic mistakes as dates in favor of your ingrained indoctrination is troubling. Please take the time to read some of the links which I have provided in that they will give you background information on the subject at hand if you do not already know anything about it.

Also your characterization of the Ottoman empire is mistaken. Yes by the time WW1 came around they were known as the sick man of Europe and for good reason. You have to realize the Ottoman empire of 1918 was not the Ottoman empire of 1300, at its outset the Ottoman empire was a power to be reckoned with and in fact did conquer Constantinople in 1453, something which the might of the Caliphate could not do after two tries and hundreds of thousands of casualties.

Yet another point the present state of muslim countries is more an outgrowth of the age of empires in Europe than anything Constantinople did in fact many present muslim countries were created by the European powers during the age of empires from the 16th-20th centuries. If anything the state of muslim countries also reinforces my point that an empire must expand or stagnate once the Caliphate could no longer expand it tore itself apart. The Islamic world was once a shining beacon of learning and tolerance but once the expansion stopped so did the learning and tolerance and just as christianity was leaving its own dark age islam was entering one of its own which from what I can see they never exited.

Response: I never even mentioned any date throughout my whole post. Once again you make a blatantcinterpolation this time and try to claim some type of credibility from it, but instead onlychelp to further embarrass yourself. So instead of making remarks of knowing basic information, perhaps a basic understanding of comprehension on your part will help you from further mishaps.

You mentioned the crusades happened before the islamic sieges of Constantinople which is wrong by hundreds of years. Wars and sieges happen at particular times it does not matter if you mention a specific date if we can independantly verify the dates in which the first crusade(1096-1099) and the islamic sieges of Constantinople happened(674-678 & 717-718). Do you deny that you said the sieges of Constantinople happened because of the first crusade?

[Fatihah]

Response: And your own sources tell you that Constantinople was the Capital of the Byzantine empire, the same empire who initiated the very first crusade. Thus it was an act of defense, as it was the Byzantine empire who strucj first and continued to make attacks. Even when they lost, they never wished to enter into any treaty of peace. Further proof of the fact that it was defense is that even in the present day, we can see the feeble muslim countries, as a result of the relentless attacks of the Byzantine empire crushing the Ottoman empire as it adapted to the new western world we know today.

Please bother to do the most basic research. The first crusade started in the year 1096 the first two islamic sieges of Constantinople happened in the years 674-678 and 717-718, hundreds of years prior to the crusades. Also the first crusade by your definition was a defensive campaign since it was lauched by the Roman pope after an appeal for aid from the Byzantine emperor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade

All this information is easily obtainable and you making such basic mistakes as dates in favor of your ingrained indoctrination is troubling. Please take the time to read some of the links which I have provided in that they will give you background information on the subject at hand if you do not already know anything about it.

Also your characterization of the Ottoman empire is mistaken. Yes by the time WW1 came around they were known as the sick man of Europe and for good reason. You have to realize the Ottoman empire of 1918 was not the Ottoman empire of 1300, at its outset the Ottoman empire was a power to be reckoned with and in fact did conquer Constantinople in 1453, something which the might of the Caliphate could not do after two tries and hundreds of thousands of casualties.

Yet another point the present state of muslim countries is more an outgrowth of the age of empires in Europe than anything Constantinople did in fact many present muslim countries were created by the European powers during the age of empires from the 16th-20th centuries. If anything the state of muslim countries also reinforces my point that an empire must expand or stagnate once the Caliphate could no longer expand it tore itself apart. The Islamic world was once a shining beacon of learning and tolerance but once the expansion stopped so did the learning and tolerance and just as christianity was leaving its own dark age islam was entering one of its own which from what I can see they never exited.

Response: I never even mentioned any date throughout my whole post. Once again you make a blatantcinterpolation this time and try to claim some type of credibility from it, but instead onlychelp to further embarrass yourself. So instead of making remarks of knowing basic information, perhaps a basic understanding of comprehension on your part will help you from further mishaps.

You mentioned the crusades happened before the islamic sieges of Constantinople which is wrong by hundreds of years. Wars and sieges happen at particular times it does not matter if you mention a specific date if we can independantly verify the dates in which the first crusade(1096-1099) and the islamic sieges of Constantinople happened(674-678 & 717-718). Do you deny that you said the sieges of Constantinople happened because of the first crusade?

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.

[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?

[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.