Taking this from the first post, and jus to put matters into perspective given the one sided and concocted views of the author,
Muslims view that the Muslims fought only when attacked, or in the context of a wider war of self-defense. They argue that Muhammad was the first among the major military figures of history to lay down rules for humane warfare, and that he was scrupulous in limiting the loss of life as much as possible.
Yousuf, you know that historical facts don't agree with what you mention here.
Persia, Egypt, Spain, India or so many other countries didn't attack Muslims. It was the reverse.
And those invasions were brutal. Genocides, rapes, slave taking, booty were common.
And it was all done in the name of the final and perfect religion!
Javed Ahmed Ghamidi writes in Mizan that there are certain directives of the Qur'an pertaining to war which were specific only to Muhammad against Divinely specified peoples of his times (the polytheists and the Israelites and Nazarites of Arabia and some other Jews, Christians, et al.) as a form of Divine punishment—for they had persistently denied the truth of Muhammad's mission even after it had been made conclusively evident to them by Allah through Muhammad, and asked the polytheists of Arabia for submission to Islam as a condition for exoneration and the others for jizya and submission to the political authority of the Muslims for exemption from death punishment and for military protection as the dhimmis of the Muslims.
I changed the emphasis of your own words. Do you see some contradiction with the other oft quoted phrase "no compulsion in religion"!
Was it really made conclusively evident! How? Were they fools to not see that conclusive evidence?
What was so conclusive other than self made claims?
See the intent is not to discuss Islamic theology itself but the nature of these invasions and accompanying violence.
Muslims may believe what you mention here all they want but others can't take them at face value as self evident truth.
Therefore, after Muhammad and his companions, there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam, hence now, the only valid reason for war is to end oppression when all other measures have failed.
Obviously Muslims failed to see it that way? Why would it be so?
Was the message not clear enough or the Muslims didn't find it practical?
The basic principle in fighting in the Qur'an is that other communities should be treated as one's own. Fighting is justified for legitimate self-defense, to aid other Muslims and after a violation in the terms of a treaty, but should be stopped if these circumstances cease to exist. The principle of forgiveness is reiterated in between the assertions of the right to self-defence.
During his life, Muhammad gave various injunctions to his forces and adopted practices toward the conduct of war. The most important of these were summarized by Muhammad's companion and first Caliph, Abu Bakr, in the form of ten rules for the Muslim army:
" O people! I charge you with ten rules; learn them well!
Do no betray or misappropriate any part of the booty; do not practice treachery or mutilation. Do not kill a young child, an old man, or a woman. Do not uproot or burn palms or cut down fruitful trees. Do not slaughter a sheep or a cow or a camel, except for food. You will meet people who have set themselves apart in hermitages; leave them to accomplish the purpose for which they have done this. You will come upon people who will bring you dishes with various kinds of foods. If you partake of them, pronounce God's name over what you eat. You will meet people who have shaved the crown of their heads, leaving a band of hair around it (monks). Go in Gods name, and may God protect you from sword and pestilence.
This very clearly sets aside any precedence that any barbarian claiming to be a muslim to use in his plunder of India or any other part of the world. The same holds good for modern times as well where Islam is used to further vested interests and other causes. Very clearly told in the Quran that what Prophet Mohammed PBUH did was heavenly ordained and that after him, no one should use his example. The ethics of battle followed by Him and His followers at the time were completely forgotten by those whose sole motive was loot and plunder.
This is all very well but all wars by even early Muslims accompanied loot, booty, slave taking, massacres etc. and it continued for as long as Muslims were the dominant.
Where was the failure?