You disappear for some pages, and then reemerge like a ghost and try to take us back pages. If you had followed the discussions thus far, you wont be asking silly questions based on a silly and offensive quote on the Prophet by a silly pope from the past. One of the same popes of the past your friend liking your post @Dark Angel was absolving Christianity of their atrocities.It was a rhetorical question. If truth means anything of value to you, you would already be assuming such roles yourself on your own. Indeed, as a supposedly genuine truth seeker and proclaimer, you ought easily, readily and constantly assume what you'd perceive to be the devil's advocate position against your own claims, putting them up for test, while resting on the fact that in so doing you'll always end up winning either way. For even with the inherent possibly, in this process, of losing your religion, your adopted way of life, your worldly rooted interests, your conceived notions that you harbor and comfortably live by, or even literally your own life, you will have gained the Truth in return, or at least (in your case esp, as a start) the realization and the peacefulness of being Truth's faithful disciple no matter how much you know of It. Is there anything more valuable than Truth? What good will it be for you to preserve and gain more of whatever appeals to you in exchange for Truth? If within yourself you see some benefit in this diabolically oriented exchange, and confidently so, then sadly I tell you you already have one foot in Hell with the other one following it.
"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached"
For the first three centuries and many more after Muhammad’s death in 632 AD, Islam spread only with an army either lurking in the background or standing in the foreground. Military armies stormed out of Arabia and conquered cities along the Tigris and Euphrates, as well as cities towards the Mediterranean Sea, like Jerusalem in 638 AD. Then Islam continued its militarily spread even beyond those regions, reaching all the way to Spain and France. Do you claim that that happened in contradiction with Muhammad and the Quran?
To repeat for the millionth times:
When is a Muslim permitted to resort to the use of force and who are those permitted to resort to the use of force:
The Glorious Quran 22:39-41
"Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory. [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is Allah." And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned. And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might. [And they are] those who, if We give them authority in the land, establish prayer and give zakah and enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong. And to Allah belongs the outcome of [all] matters"
1. those who are being fought,
2. those who were oppressed
3. those evicted from their homes or land.
The above is a general verse. It is not subject to place and time. It is universal. General rule.
Same with the below. Are Muslims to fight others because they choose not to be Muslims:
The Glorious Quran 60:8
"Allah does not forbid you (as regards) the ones who have not fought you on account of the religion and have not driven you out of your residences that you should be benign to them and be equitable towards them; surely Allah loves the equitable."
So based on the above, we are to treat people who haven't fought us and haven't driven us out of our homes kindly and justly.
Are there Muslims who acted contrary to the above? Yes, it is possible and we see examples in the pages of history. Are or were they contradicting the above verses? Yes. Do I support or approve of the conquests by the Caliphate, who the criteria to fight as per the above were not met? I do not.