During the beginnings of islam, during the development traditions of Islam, The idea of the “Greater Jihad” had developed, which involves the aspect of spiritual struggle in odds with human desires. A concept which is widespread in our concurrent discussions of the Islamic religion. Scholars of Islam often make the point that jhd, the Arabic root of “jihad”, is related in general to the idea of struggle, yet it has been mistaken with the persistence towards warfare. An argument brought by Muslims has been made, that the tradition of the Greater Jihad, and what it truly stands for shows that Islam origins was a peaceful movement. As Robert Hoyland, the Author of In God’s Path and a historian of the Middle East shows in his his writing, the story of events that took part in the rise of Islam. That it is in large, a story of military conquests, a conquest of fighting to give rise to their religion. During the time of early beginnings, through which Prophet Muhammad led the Islamic community, their need to use military powers against non-Muslims who threatened their very existence was necessary. These organized movements began in the roots of the Arabian Peninsula, dispersing across Middle East, Iran, North Africa, as well as parts of Central Asia. The success of their conquests, built up their territory and enemies which further fueled many conquests to come. Muslim leaders were judged for their prominent and impressive success in the fight against non-Muslim forces. A fight, that I believe other religions have taken before them as well.Yet Indeed, the reader of In God’s Path, may not be able to ignore the impression of aggression that was present throughout the conquest. In every direction, Mohamed sent out messages that asked people to convert, and those who declined were faced by the Islamic forces. One of Islam’s vital gains was Constantinople ( Hoyland, 110). In years between and again in 717–18 (a similar parallel to 674–78) one of the biggest armies yet made by the Muslims was organized by the Umayyad (rulers of the time) to take over the capital of the Byzantine Empire. Unfortunately, the campaign resulted in utter failure. The militancy style of early society in Islam was similar to other societies. However, it is important to note that the Arab forces were not intent on creating bloodshed. The rule, whenever able, relied on the use negotiations and strategies to convince the cities towards submission without a fight. But when their opponents showed opposition, however, they were ready to act with force. In his book, Hoyland tells about the seven thousand Byzantines killed by the Muawiya caliph, in Caesarea in of the year 641. And of Jur and Istakhr massacred, in which forty thousand inhabitants sacrificed in the Iranian cities during the early 650s (hoyland, 111). Hoyland, paints a picture of the mass executions that came along the Islamic conquest in Spain. The Arabs were wildly successful defeating their enemies. They also managed to build a lasting civilization, marked by stable institutions and profound piety. Hoyland’s view on the way the conquests played out shines a light on the question of whether the muslim movement was spiritual or material. But I think there’s a fine line between the two or rather a hard way to distinguish and tear them apart. At the time and for a long time, warfare was an honorable way of spreading one’s rule and expanding territory. There is not much leniency for different cultures and religions to co-exist and when those who were different came to be they had to fight to exist. For a long time, in order to convert to Islam, one needed to first associate themselves with an Arab family. When Islam did develop into a fully formed religion in the late seventh and early eighth centuries, on the other hand, warfare was naturally treated as a central element of the faith. The development of Islam, then, involved the incorporation of a militant culture of conquest. As the tradition of the “Greater Jihad”shows, some later mystics (but not all—some mystics were themselves jihadis) downplayed the centrality of holy war. Even then, this ambivalence in regard to war remained a minority view until very recent times. This does not mean, of course, that there is anything illegitimate about the view that Islam is a religion of peace. There is, afterall, much in the Quran and Islamic tradition that lends itself to building a culture of peace. Nevertheless, it is telling that in most Islamic countries today the Islamic conquests are celebrated and not lamented. Lessons on early Islamic history in the Islamic World, as a rule, do not note with remorse the killings and enslavements that went hand in hand with the conquests. The great warriors of the conquests who defeated infidels and conquered cities are held up as heroes of Islam. The leaders of these conquests—the first four “rightly guided” caliphs—are cherished as holy figures, at least by Sunni Islam. (Shia Revere only Ali, the fourth caliph.) Thus the conquests are often remembered as a glorious achievement of Islam. Yet, Hoyland shows us that the Arab conquests involved an immense amount of human suffering. When the story of the conquests is told from the perspective of the conquered, they appear rather less than glorious.