... you can say that about any historical event ever and massage it to fit your narrative.
The commandment for Muslims to fight wasn't sent down till a year or two after the emigration, so they were quite literally not allowed to fight or "subdue" or "coerce" anyone. There's a /tonne/ of evidence that the emigration was peaceful (though there were certainly subgroups opposed to it politically and ideologically). It is quite literally one of the least contentious pieces of Islamic history.
Because neither of you cited any material to substantiate your claims, I did some Googling.
As someone with little bias on this topic and no prior knowledge of the "Hijrah" from Mecca to Medina, page 1 of Google for multiple queries returned both versions of the story; a peaceful one and a violent one.
> It is quite literally one of the least contentious pieces of Islamic history.
I referred to the act of emigration and the pact of brotherhood, not the subsequent conflicts with the Jews. There was no "conquest" of Medina. Conquest implies an invading army subjugating a native population, which didn't happen because there was no army - only refugees.
I mean, they were invited to come over and the Prophet(S) was invited to take a role of the head of state. Generally speaking most (not all) of the native Arab population (excluding the Jews) was happy about it. So in that sense, yes they were "subjugated" in that their were subject to him as head of state. It's not unlike a modern election where even if you're not happy about the result of the election, you're still subject to rules made by the new government.
Do we have any histories not written by Muslims confirming that they were invited or that Muhammad was voluntarily given absolute and hereditary power?
As for being like a modern election, well, Trump hasn't exiled any Democrats yet.
a) It wasn't hereditary.
b) A bunch of ragtag Meccans came to Medina with a destitute Prophet, where there were two well armed and well established Arab tribes and three Jewish tribes. No armed conflict took place, because there is no reasonable way to assert that that would not be recorded, by both Jewish and Muslim sources.
a) I guess whether it was hereditary depends on whether you're Sunni or Shia. Either way, it certainly was heritable, lasting beyond Muhammad's death, to be inherited by either his cousin or his wife's father.
b) Muhammad united the two Arab tribes and conquered Medina, expelling or killing the three Jewish tribes. Is that your understanding?
A) I'm sure he planned that when he escaped from Mecca on a camel.
B) yes kind of like how the Russians went communist and then invaded Afghanistan.
/a whole lot happened in between/
---
Anyway, I'm done arguing. You obviously won't be convinced and neither will I, and I have better things to do than argue with a person on the internet. Good luck with whatever it is that you do and no hard feelings.
The Hijrah was in 622, Mohammad died in 632. Ten years to solidify power in Medina and Mecca isn't really comparable to the seventy years and a world war between the Russian Revolution and the invasion of Afghanistan.
I'm sorry you didn't find this worth your time. I've learned a few things from this discussion, and refreshed my memory of a few others, so I found it worthwhile. Thanks for the discussion.
The commandment for Muslims to fight wasn't sent down till a year or two after the emigration, so they were quite literally not allowed to fight or "subdue" or "coerce" anyone. There's a /tonne/ of evidence that the emigration was peaceful (though there were certainly subgroups opposed to it politically and ideologically). It is quite literally one of the least contentious pieces of Islamic history.