Do you think there was a dramatic change in the attitude toward the use of military might among Muslim leaders in the early caliphates following Muhammad's death? At what point?

Thanks so much, everyone, for a great discussion. Alas, have to go off now to a committee meeting. I hope it is peaceful! Your insightful comments have been much appreciated!

What early sources are most reliable? Do you take for granted the image painted by hadith and sira in constructing the course of Muhammad's life?

Islam recognizes followers of both Judaism and Christianity, is there any indication that this was deliberate on Muhammad's part to foster peace among the related religions?

How much of the war between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sasanian Empire would Muhammad have actually seen? Did it touch the Arabian Peninsula or did he, say, spend time living in the Levant or modern day Iraq and see it there?

In Muhammad’s time there were several large Arab groups allied to the Romans and Persians. Did Muhammad see the potential conversion of such groups as incompatible with their political loyalty to non-Arab states? Or did he envision the spread of Islam independent of political control?

Do we have a good sense as to how Muhammad saw his community in a wider world context? I'm assuming concepts like Dar al Harb, Dar al Islam and Dar al Ahd are fleshed out in a later time ... did Muhammad have a "grand strategy" beyond Mecca and the Arab tribes?

Christianity has pretty much always had the Apocalypse as a future end point, but I'm curious if Muhammad had much of a sense for what he expected Islam or the Muslim community to develop into in the future.

The massacre of the Banu Quarayza stands out as an unusually violent episode in a “conquest” typified (in Islamic sources at least) by clever diplomacy. How atypical was this incident, and what caused it?

The Wikipedia article seems to suggest that the decision was based on instructions from the book of Deuteronomy - is that plausible?

Just from your description here you highlight Muhammed as a figure generally seeking and promoting a peaceful existence. How do you reconcile that with events such as the massacre of the Banu Qurayza, which seem to go beyond mere violence? Reading Safi's Memories of Muhammed he suggests some scholars question the historicity of the event, is this a common/well supported view?

Objectively and honestly, what are the criticisms of your conclusion, and how would you respond to them?

How much contact would the romans especially have had deeper in Arabia? Would most of it just been around the edges?

Also I've heard that a lot of Arabian men would have fought on one side of the war or the other, were they more like mercenaries, tributary fighters, vassals, allies or something different?

How firmly established is the historicity of Muhammad as a person?

Among many ordinary people, Islam has the reputation of a religion of conquest, especially in its early centuries. Why would you say that is? Would you like to make any other comment on this reputation? Thank you.

Since you've dug into a variety of early sources, have you found anything interesting about the Shia/Sunni divide with the Saqifah event which might not be covered by modern layman's English sources? Perhaps some context or observations? Thanks!

Hi Prof. Cole, thank you for being here!

The last two years have obviously been a tumultuous time for western governmental and societal relations with Islam and Islamic countries. From a historiographical standpoint, has the post-2016 political environment presented challenges to your field or your research?

Is there an equivalent native tradition for conducting textual criticism of the Qur'an in the same way as there is such for the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament?

How different are shia traditional and historic sources from sunni traditional and historic sources?

From where do we get from the Quran? And how to distinguish between what actually was made the part of Quran and what was not?

If Quran was revealed in stages over 20 years is it justifiable to call it a ‘book’?

While the major divisions within Christianity are usually theological (usually relating to some disagreement over Christology), the divisions within Islam tend to be much more openly political. Are there any historical reasons for this to be the case?

How do you maintain that Muhammad was a "Prophet of Peace" with the issue of abrogation and Sura at-Tawba being the second to last Sura revealed, particularly related to 9:5 and 9:29?

Especially when you take into account numerous Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim ahadith & tafsir most notably from Ibn Kathir reinforcing the idea of the pious nature of Jihad Taleb as prescribed in these very verses, which are supposed to be binding for all time? Not to mention the horror stories like that of the Banu Qurayza found in Sirat Rasul Allah where Muhammad had between 600-900 men beheaded simply for reaching puberty under suspicion they were guilty of "betrayal" in the Siege of Yathrib?

Not uniquely violent/evil by for his time? Sure (assuming Muhammad even existed and wasn't just a pre-Islamic Syriac Christian title for Jesus). But "peaceful"? It seems like a "click-bait" title.

I imagine that these points are covered in your book, and in other comments you have said that you expect criticisms to be from revisionists (Muhammad = Jesus in Syriac) and traditionalists (lack of Sunnah). I'm interested what your feedback is if you have the time.

Are you arguing he was a relatively peaceful person or a relatively peaceful person for his time/area?

Do we have any non Islamic sources about Muhammad's life that were his contemporaries?

Hey not sure if you are still doing this ama but ill ask my question anyway on the offchance you do see it. What was the official reasoning behind abu bakr's invasion of the sassanid and byzantine empires? What was the casus belli if there was one? Thanks!

Thank you very much for joining us today for the AMA. This is just a general reminder for anyone looking to post a question here. We of course welcome any and all inquiries relevant Dr. Cole's book and research but do ask that anyone looking to ask a question keep the basic subreddit rules in mind! Principally here we expect that questions be asked politely, in good faith, and without bigoted or otherwise offensive wording towards Muslims or any other group. Users who violate these basic guidelines can expect to receive an immediate ban.

Thanks,
The Mods

According to Robert Martin Kerr, it's not sure if Muhammad was a historical figure. The first referring to him in Arabic sources, except he is mentioned 4 times in the Quran, are on a coin in Iran around 685 A.D. According to professor Patricia Crone, we don't know much about him. She thinks that Muhammad existed, but everything else is uncertain! There are little archeological evidence from early Muslim times, so how can we know what happened in the Arabian desert when Muhammad supposedly lived?