(May 2, 2016 at 8:52 am)Mudhammam Wrote:(May 2, 2016 at 8:32 am)Yeauxleaux Wrote: No it did, I don't see how it couldn't have been violent personally. But there wasn't this extreme "convert to Islam or die" sentiment behind it that has become fashionable among modern jihadists.So... what about the ninth Sura of the Qur'an (and in much of it elsewhere), where Muhammad explicitly gives the pagans four months to evacuate with the ultimatum that those who refuse will be summarily executed... Or the hadith in which, as one of his final statements, he signaled the desire that Islam be the only religion on the Arabian Peninsula... Or the 8th Muslim historian Ibn Ishaq, who graphically describes the various assassinations, sieges, murders, etc. of Muhammad and his gang of degenerates?
The koran is as much a pile of propaganda as your bible.
What history is telling us is that the initial spread of the so-called islamic armies resulted in the defeat of the military forces opposing them; generally Persians and Byzantines. But, regardless of the fucking koran, it appears that they did not indulge in ethnic cleansing - to use the modern euphemism for genocide - against the captured populations. Again, when dealing with religitards it is important to figure out what they did. That is history. As opposed to what their holy books say, which is horseshit.
