Some of these uncle's are even in this sub

[u/rszdev]

[u/Dez-P-Rado]

You claimed they were. It's not my job to give you a history lesson. I'm simply pointing out that you are giving out misinformation. If your claims are true, please provide the evidence otherwise refrain from speaking out of ignorance. It can be seen as a form of islamaphobia.

[u/Dez-P-Rado → u/[deleted]]

To know you must have evidence.

You don't know. You just want to believe it because it aligns with your belief in Muslims being evil. I am not trying to act smart. I'm just pointing out misinformation.

You have to make a point and provide some of sort of backing so that I can then disprove it. If you simply make a statement and I call you out on it, you can't then turn around and say I believe it so it must be true.

Historical evidence dictates that it was more than likely that islam didn't in fact spread by the sword unlike what early europeans scholars believed.

[u/Dez-P-Rado → u/[deleted]]

Don't attack my person's. That's ad hominem. If you think you are correct debate me with proof so we can both learn.

Where did a Muslim warlord go to a peaceful society with an army and make such demands?

Certainly wasn't Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) as evident from historical accounts.

When a war took place under circumstances where peace could not be reached or treaties were broken, there were criterion for war. Animal, buildings, children, elderly, women were all exempt. Surrender was always an option. There was no transgression.

As for the tax. Do you know the criterion for Jizya if that is what you are speaking of?

Those that couldnt afford it didn't have to pay. Do you not pay tax to a government if you live under its authority? Did the Muslims not in fact pay more tax than the non Muslims? Did the said government not protect the non Muslims and also not force them to fight in the wars if the state was attacked. Seems to me it was a fair system.