Islam critiqued launches assault on the caliphs; Muslim invasions?

In answer to the video "Surah 9:29 in Context"

There is no basis for the caliphate with an ideology for territorial expansion in either the Quran or in prophetic traditions. These wars did not happen under the prophet's authority. Neither the prophet nor the Quran approve of unprovoked aggression. The life and wars of the prophet testify to this. 

"`Abdullah bin `Umar came to us and we hoped that he would narrate to us a good Hadith. But before we asked him, a man got up and said to him, "O Abu `Abdur-Rahman! Narrate to us about the battles during the time of the afflictions, as Allah says:-- 'And fight them until there is no more afflictions (i.e. no more worshipping of others besides Allah).'" (2.193) Ibn `Umar said (to the man), "Do you know what is meant by afflictions? Let your mother bereave you! Muhammad used to fight against the pagans, for a Muslim was put to trial in his religion (The pagans will either kill him or chain him as a captive). His fighting was not like your fighting which is carried on for the sake of ruling".

  During the Prophet's lifetime, while the Quran was being revealed, no act of hostility was initiated by him against an enemy because of his religion. For instance, the Jews of Qaynuqa fought alongside Muslim ranks after Badr, a Jewish Rabbi fought and called upon his fellow Jews to fight alongside the Prophet against the Quraysh at Uhud, even many idolaters fought on the Prophet's side at Hunayn and al-Ta’if. The confusion about the tradition of war in Islam arises from the fact that the decision to join in these wars was given religious justification. However, the Quran does so because it is a God-given right that mankind should be free to worship Him in security. Confusion is also due to the Muslims's enemies being identified by their religious beliefs in relation to Islam; kuffar, mushrikun and ahl al-kitab.

There is no compulsion in religion, and until the end of days, ironically the same day which, those who deceptively level these false accusations against the prophet, think that all races and nations will be forcefully bowing to their God Zech14. The notion of divinely sanctioned conquests and subjugation, decimation of foreign population is purely a Judeo-Christian one. In the HB and as corroborated by Jesus in the NT when he said to abide by it to the minute details, several types of wars are promulgated.

There is the compulsory command/mitzva among the 613 revealed at Sinai, binding on Jews of all times to destroy Amalek's seed Deut25:19 without showing any pity whenever the opportunity is there, and exterminate the remaining Canaanite nations from the land of Israel whenever any of them or their descendants are identified Deut20:16. This is a timeless ordinance, as already said, part of the 613 binding commandments, and is thus an explicit order to genetically exterminate a certain people. Every command within the Torah is understood as eternally binding and those that are inapplicable today due to the absence of a Temple will be reinstated in the utopian messianic era, where every nation will be forcefully subdued to the Jewish God. The eternally binding command to blot out Amalek's seed and other Canaanites, if one fails acting upon this law anytime a descendant of such tribes is genetically identified, then one becomes subject to divine anger as what happened to king Saul 1Sam28:18,1Chr10. Saul suffered a violent and dishonourable death. His household was decimated at the hands of the Philistines who also dispossessed his community.

The same happened prior to the entire Israelite community that was sent for a 40 years desert wandering for their refusal to engage the promised land's natives in battle. Along with those known, compulsory genocidal warfare as described earlier, during which no atrocities towards men, women, children, cattle and plants may be spared, there are laws relating to optional warfare, for the sole purpose of Israel's "national glory" as labelled by their rabbis.

In such cases any random nation the Israelites arbitrarily choose, and set themselves out to conquer can either be "peacefully" submitted, resulting in the enslavement and taxation of its population, or in case of their rejection of the "peace offer", a military subjugation resulting with the execution of all adult males, the capture as spoils of war of their women, children, and livestock

Deut20:10-14"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby".

In addition, should it be necessary to completely subdue that nation

2Kings3:19"you shall fell every good tree, and you shall stop up all springs of water, and you shall clutter every good field with stones".

In the land of Canaan, those natives that werent driven out or exterminated as per the Torah's injunctions during the invasion, were subdued into slavery Josh17:13. Their descendants suffered the same fate under Solomon's rule 1Kings9:20-1. After all and as stated in both the HB and the Talmudic writings, the purpose of creation and the reason why the heavens and earth are maintained is for the chosen race to observe Torah.

All these citations werent made to disparage the Bible, rather at pointing what would have been the outcome had the Quran been the product of human base desires, whims, greed and lust. The fact is the Ishmaelites went through almost identical situations as the Israelites in their confrontations with opposing tribes and nations, and yet we do not find anything remotely similar in terms of abuse and excess as is seen throughout the Hebrew writings, and by the hands of true prophets of God.

It is to be further noted that the Quran does allude to some episodes where the Israelites were confronted to, or were about to engage the Canaanites. Everytime, it refrains from mentioning the shocking acts which the Israelites have committed. The Quran could have used these incidents as divinely sanctioned precedents allowing unrestricted bloodshed and abuses. Yet we keep on reading in the context of warfare, verses stressing self-restraint in retaliation, or the non-materialistic goals of fighting in Allah's way.

The early caliphate was actually a war of liberation of the oppressed people of the Roman, Persian and Egyptian nations from centuries of tyranny. There is a reason why the early Islamic state expanded with such speed, the local people did not resist and instead embraced the Muslim liberators that brought positive change in all aspects of their lives, whether they decided to convert or keep their own belief system.

For example the Judeo-Christian population of Syria preferred Muslim rule to that of the Christian Byzantine empire. Seeing this phenomenon occuring all throughout the Muslims territories is what made some medieval jurists argue that the Islamic System is a much better one than any man-made law as it opposed oppression.

The purpose of waging Islamic war, became in their eyes to spread the sharia, which includes laws accommodating non-Muslim communities.

This supremacist view of the Islamic system is what made Ibn Khaldun argue that Islam had to ultimately spread globally, even by coercion. Throughout time, dominant powers viewed and still do, their societal order as superior, seeking to spread it by all means so as to safeguard their geopolitical interests. It is to be noted that Ibn khaldun maintained that warfare is intrinsic to human history, since immemorial times. He did not argue that cessation of warfare was something unthinkable to Islam. Prior to ibn Khaldun, other Muslim scholars the likes of  al-Turtushi described wars as “social anomalies”. Al-Hasan ibn ‛Abd Allah compared wars “to diseases of society”. The vast majority of Muslim scholars past and present, view war as a necessary remedy against aggression. Going back to ibn Rushd/Averoes, he reported the controversies of his time as to whether an enemy should be killed because of his hostility or solely for his religious difference and refusal to accept Islam.

As one goes through the various legal opinions of the Muslim scholars throughout time and up until the modern era, what transpires is that their understanding of what is required of the Quran and the prophet in terms of warfare reflects the political and ideological environments in which they formulated their ideas.

But the historical facts are clear; none of the wars in the times of the prophet and the early caliphs were done against a people solely because of their religious differences. The massive, but progressive conversions, as will be shown later, could by no means be due to the fear of being enslaved by the Arab Muslims during the early Islamic conquests. Otherwise, we should expect many people to have renounced Islam following the military and political decline of Muslim power in the world.