Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board
| jihad!!! [Was expansion of the Muslim empire jihad?] |
|---|
| Anonymous |
| 11/01/01 at 14:34:54 |
| Assalam-o-alaikum Alhamdolillah I am a Muslim but but not so much knowledgeable perhaps. :-( I have got a confusion with the topic of Jihad, I am sure someone will be able to clear this issue for me. thanks It is probably the most sensitive issue these days. I have read that armed Jihad is only permissible if there is any sort of aggression against Islam or a Muslim community. I was just wondering about all the wars that were fought with the Byzantines and Persians in the earlier phases of Islamic history, can those be termed as Jihad... (I am sure they would but am very confused as to how). Were they the continuation of the earlier aggressions on the Islamic community by those empires or was there any other reason. I know that though those territories were conquered by the Islamic forces but no one was forced to revert to Islam, but how justified were the Muslims to attack those empires in the first place. Wassalam and jazakumullah khairan for help. |
| NS |
| Re: jihad!!! [Was expansion of the Muslim empire jihad?] |
|---|
| Anik |
| 11/01/01 at 14:52:04 |
| asalaamu alaikum, I've always been wondering about this question as well, The expansion of the muslim empire in the time of Prophet Muhammad SAW had to have been just- we know that. In a time of such tumultuous war, I think there would be jihad left right and centre. It wasn't too hard to be attacked... and yes, they say no one was forced to convert... but the situation was different after the life of Muhammad SAW... See, when the muslim empire expanded after, it's hard to admit but many atrocities were committed and often the muslim side was the aggressor... and there were forced conversions. so I think when analyzing this we have to split up the two times, one where actions were just IA, and the other where actions may be questionable. asalaamu alaikum. abdullah,. |
| NS |
| Re: jihad!!! [Was expansion of the Muslim empire jihad?] |
|---|
| BroHanif |
| 11/01/01 at 16:58:05 |
| [quote]I know that though those territories were conquered by the Islamic forces but no one was forced to revert to Islam, but how justified were the Muslims to attack those empires in the first place [/quote] Please read the noble Quran, some of the works on Sahih Muslim, Bukahri, Ibn Kathir about Jehad, Ibn Taymiyah about Jehad and Shiekh Abduallah Azzam about Jehad. Its quite interesting the concept of Jihad. http://www.ummah.net/harkat/jihad/jihad.htm http://www.youngmuslims.ca/biographies/display.asp?ID=9 [quote]but the situation was different after the life of Muhammad SAW... See, when the muslim empire expanded after, it's hard to admit but many atrocities were committed and often the muslim side was the aggressor... and there were forced conversions.[/quote] Like where Brother :(. Please bring your references forward and don't use some orientalist who has done poor research to discredit my ancestors. [quote]" Indeed Islamic history is not written except with the blood of the Shuhadaa', except with the stories of the Shuhadaa' and except with the examples of the Shuhadaa'. "[/quote] |
| Re: jihad!!! [Was expansion of the Muslim empire jihad?] |
|---|
| bhaloo |
| 11/01/01 at 19:44:28 |
| slm [quote]See, when the muslim empire expanded after, it's hard to admit but many atrocities were committed and often the muslim side was the aggressor... and there were forced conversions. so I think when analyzing this we have to split up the two times, one where actions were just IA, and the other where actions may be questionable. asalaamu alaikum. abdullah,.[/quote] Where are you getting this ERRONEOUS information from? ??? There was a program on PBS called Empire of Faith, it was about Islam, put together by NON-MUSLIMS, it did an EXCELLENT job of explaining how Islam spread, and there wasn't any mention of these bogus attrocities that you are claiming. |
| Re: jihad!!! [Was expansion of the Muslim empire jihad?] |
|---|
| Merimda |
| 11/01/01 at 22:58:59 |
| <<See, when the muslim empire expanded after, it's hard to admit but many atrocities were committed and often the muslim side was the aggressor... and there were forced conversions.>> Salam, As a student of History I must disagree with the statement above. One of my majors is Middle Eastern and Islamic History... and even my profs, who are all non-Muslims, cannot deny that when the Muslims expanded and conquered other lands, they did not impose Islam upon those whom they conquered. In some cases the Muslims were even welcome.. Here is an account to prove this: [Abu Hafs al-Dimiashqi told me that Sa'ad b. Abd al Aziz told him.. "I was informed as follows"__ When Heraclius gathered his troops against the Muslims, and the Muslims learned that they were advancing upon them to do battle at the Yarmuk, the Mulims gave back to the people of Hims the tribute which they had taken form them. they told them:"We are too preoccupied to aid and defend you. You are on your own." But the ppl of Hims replied:"We prefer your rule and your Justice to the oppression and injustice under which we were formely. Amd we shall surely repel Heraclius' army from the city, with the help of your governor." Then the Jews rose up and said: "By the Torah, Heraclius' gvernor shall not enter the city of Hims unless we are vanquished and utterly played out!" Then they locked the gates and set guards over them. The epople of the other cities which had surrendered to the Muslims, both Christians and Jews, did likewise, saying, "If the Byzantines and their followers are victorious over the Muslims, we shall revert to our former state. if they are not, then we shall reatin control of our own affairs as long as the Muslims maiantian their forces. When Allah caused the unbeleivers to be defeated and granted victory to the Muslims, they opened the gates of their cities and sent out a festive welcome with music, and they paid the tribute. al-Baladhuri, Futuh al-Buldan ed. Ridwan Muhammad Ridwan (Cairo, 1959) P. 143] The Christains in Syria and Egypt were mostly Monophysites who were persecuted by the Byzantines thus when the Muslims came in they (the xtn and Jews) welcomed them or at least did not oppose them. There are of course some exceptions; Some Muslim rulers and generals did persecute their non-Muslims subjects, but these are just exceptions to the rule; It did not happen often. The exception that's often noted, is a Fatimid Caliph called Al Hakim who is described in the historical accounts as a rather mentally unstable personality (He banned the use of money and the eating of grapes -_-; ) And there is the Devsherme system in Ottoman empire where they would take young boys from Christian families usually from the Balkans to serve as Janassaries (However it must be noted that most of these families were extremely poor and usually sold their boys for some income and in the hope thet their child would get a better life)..These boys were given Islamic, military, admistrative Education. Many of these Janassaries actually became high influencial offcials who ran the empire.. The Mamluk empire had a similar system..Interesting point to consider, is that at one point in Mamluke history one could not become a Sultan unless he was a military slave first.. Was this forced conversion or not..It's arguable.. |
| Re: jihad!!! [Was expansion of the Muslim empire jihad?] |
|---|
| Merimda |
| 11/02/01 at 00:09:18 |
| Salam, To reply to the original question: I found this on Islam online: A question arises: is taking up arms the only means to spread Islam? Fighting originally had two main objectives: the first one was to stave off an actual or an anticipated aggression, and the second one was to clear the hurdles in the path of Da`wah (call for Islam). The battles of Badr, Uhud, Al-Khandaq and others are examples of staving off actual aggression and some of them were fought in order to aid the oppressed. “But if they seek your help in religion, it is your duty to help them…” (Al-Anfâl: 72). The conquest of Makkah (Mecca) was undertaken for the purpose of staving off an expected aggression after Quraish had violated its covenant with the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in Al-Hudaybyah; this was also the case of the expedition of Tabűk and other expeditions. It also cleared the obstacles placed in the path of Islam by enabling the Muslims to leave Al-Madînah (Medina) and spread the call to Islam all over the world because Islam is a universal religion meant for all mankind. Since Islam has imposed Jihad and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said that he was sent by Allah to fight disbelievers and that his sustenance was “tied” to his spear, as related by Ahmad on the authority of Ibn `Umar, then we have to understand that Islam advocated acquiring the highest degree of power, and the reason for this is that Islam, at that time, was a newly rising power and was expected to be “attacked” by the already existing powers to prevent it from competing with them over power – a conflict that is common to all ages. Therefore, the new entity had to be defended in order to prove its strength and deliver its message. If Islam were a local temporary call, taking up arms would be just for the purpose of defense, but Islam is a universal call that had to reach the whole world. However, the only means at that time was traveling, which was, and still is fraught with dangers; so taking up arms was necessary to prevent the enemies from standing in the path of the call. While arms were necessary to remove the hurdles in the past, their sole mission now is to defend Islam against those who want to harm it and harm those who embrace it. As for spreading Islam, there are several means that spare people the trouble of traveling, such as newspapers, books and other means that have known no boarders, although they may be controlled to some extent. However, radio stations have become of such power and prevalence that they can reach people while being at home or even in bed, and they can neither be prevented by any authority, nor held back by any door or border The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was allegedly quoted as saying to the people of Makkah ‘I swear to Allah that I was sent to kill’’, narrated by Al-Tabarâni. However, this is a weak Hadith refuted by both logic and evidence from the Qur’an and the Prophet’s Hadiths. First, how could the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) make such a declaration at the beginning of his mission, which it would drive people away rather than encourage them to follow him? And how could he say that while he was powerless and could neither defend himself nor his few followers? Moreover, why did Quraish leave him in spite of knowing his intention? Why didn’t they kill him first before he killed them? Secondly, the previous alleged Hadith contradicts the Qur’anic verse: “We sent thee not, but as a mercy for all creatures’’. (Al-Anbiyâ’: 107) and the Hadith, “I am a mercy granted by Allah to mankind’’, narrated by Al-Hâkim and Al-Tabarâni. There are many texts and events that indicate the Prophet’s (peace and blessings be upon him) tenderness and merciful nature. In addition to this, if the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) were a bloodthirsty man, he wouldn’t have forgiven Quraish after the conquest of Makkah while he was quite capable of wreaking vengeance. Moreover, the meaning of the Hadith narrated by Ahmad with a sound chain of narrators “My provision has been made to come from “underneath my spear” is that the Prophet’s share of the booty that the Muslims obtain from the wars which he leads are considered a means of livelihood. The fact that the financial needs of the head of the state are supplied from the state’s treasury with its several resources, including the spoils of war, is an Islamic principle recognized by the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) for Abu Bakr, `Umar and the caliphs. The superficial understanding of the legality of fighting contained in the verses of the Glorious Qur’an and the Prophet’s Hadiths may give the impression that Islam has been spread by force and that if it had not been for force, Islam would not have existed or become predominant in many countries or embraced by such a large number of people. But how could this be said about Islam which is the religion of mercy? . Allah Almighty says: “O you believe! Enter perfectly in Islam (by obeying all the rules and regulation of Islamic religion) (Al-Baqarah: 208) “But if the enemy inclines towards peace, do thou also incline towards peace and trust in Allah.” (Al-Anfâl: 61) .The Prophet also says: "O people! Do not wish to face the enemy (in a battle) and ask Allah to save you (from calamities) but if you should face the enemy, then be patient and let it be known to you that Paradise is under the shades of swords.” The call to Islam is not meant to be imposed on anyone, people are completely free to make their choice. In fact, creeds can never be imposed on people. Allah Almighty says to Noah: “Shall We compel you to accept it when you are averse to it?’’(Hűd: 28), Allah says to Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) “Wilt thou compel mankind against their will to believe!” (Yűnus: 99); many other verses convey the same meaning. When the Prophet (PGBUH) sent Ali to fight the Jews of Khaybar, `Ali said: “Know that Paradise lies beneath the shade of swords.” (Reported by Al-Bukhari and Muslim)); many other verses convey the same meaning. When the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) sent Ali to fight the Jews of Khaybar, `Ali said: `Ali said, "Should we fight them (i.e. disbelievers) till they become like us (i.e. Muslims)?" i.e. should I force them o embrace Islam. The Prophet said, "Be patient, till you face them and invite them to Islam and inform them of what Allah has enjoined upon them. By Allah! If a single person embraces Islam at your hand (i.e. through you), that will be better for you than the red camels." (i.e. that will be better than precious worldly gains.) (Reported by Al-Bukhari and Muslim) While there are texts that explicitly indicate the absolute order to fight, there are others that restrict it to whether it is for the purpose of staving off an aggression, preventing an expected aggression or making it a punishment for violating a covenant. Allah Almighty says, “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits”. (Al-Baqarah: 190). “But if they violate their oaths after their covenant and taunt you for your faith, fight thee the chiefs of unfaith". (At-Tawbah: 12). In fact, the previous verse specifies the meaning of the verses: “And fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together” (At-Tawbah: 36), “And slay them wherever ye catch them” (Al-Baqarah: 191), “And fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression” (Al-Baqarah: 193). Texts that apparently indicate fighting for the purpose of spreading Islam mean that fighting ends if people embrace Islam. For instance, the Hadith narrated by Al-Bukhari and Muslim: “I have been ordered to fight against people until they bear witness that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform Salah (Prayer) and give Zakah (the obligatory charity); so if they do that, then they will save their lives and property from me except for Islamic prescribed laws, and then their reckoning will be done by Allah." (Reported be Al-Bukhari and Muslim) And the Qur’anic verse saying: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day nor hold that forbidden which have been forbidden by Allah and his apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are of the people of the book until they pay the Jizya 1” (At-Tawbah: 29). Actually, levying the Jizya had never been the motive for Jihad, which used to end on its being paid. A strong evidence asserting that Jihad had not been waged for the purpose of obtaining financial gains is that Abu `Ubaydah refunded the Jizya that was paid by some non-Muslims under the protection of the Islamic state when they were called to fight the Romans. The reason for this act was that the Jizya was originally levied in return for protection by the Muslims, but since the Muslims were not going to perform that duty, it was meaningless to keep the Jizya, as mentioned by Abu Yűsuf in his book “Al-kharâg”. Those who call for taking up arms intend struggling to change the current state of the Islamic communities. We have previously said that any means of reform based on violence will not achieve its goals. In addition to this, exercising power requires extensive preparation and planning including a careful study of all existing circumstances before taking such a step, i.e. calling arms. However, this should not be understood as undermining the importance of Jihad in its general sense. Jihad will continue till the end of days in all its forms and through all its means. This is evident from the Hadith narrated by Abu Dawűd: “Jihad will continue from the day I was sent by Allah till the last people of my nation fight against the Antichrist (Dajjâl), it will neither be stopped by oppression nor abstention”. This Hadith denotes the continuance of Jihad in all fields including armed Jihad, is an integral element; this fact is evident from referring to fighting against the Antichrist. Fighting against disbelievers is an obvious example of clearing the hurdles from the path of Da`wah and defending all that is held sacred. As for Jihad against Islamic states, it should not be of an aggressive nature but it should be for staving off aggression, and should not be resorted to unless all peaceful means are exhausted. This is in accordance with the Qur’anic verse: “If two parties among the believers fall into a quarrel , make ye peace between them! But if one of them transgress beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye(all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah.” (Al-Hujurât: 9). Concerning defense, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have said, “Whoever is killed in defense of his life or property is a martyr.” (Narrated by Abu Dawűd) The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) also has warned against aggressiveness towards individuals, or groups or Islamic states saying "When two Muslims fight (meet) each other with their swords, both the murderer as well as the murdered will go to the Hell-fire.' The narrator of the Hadith said, 'O Allah's Messenger! It is all right for the murderer but what about the murdered one?' Allah's Messenger replied, "He surely had the intention to kill his companion." http://www.islam-online.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=18243 |
| Re: jihad!!! [Was expansion of the Muslim empire jihad?] |
|---|
| assing |
| 11/02/01 at 10:10:45 |
| As salaamu alaykum, i have read many previous posts regarding jihad and there seems to gross misunderstanding not only from the kuffar but unfortunately from the muslims as well, however this time i decided to say something perhaps other may upon clarity as to what this noble act of ibaadah is about, and as the scholars have a say "if the ignorant ones only remained quite the diffences will cease to exist". First of all we msut understand that there are two basic types of jihad: 1."Jihad al hujumee" - The offensive jihad, and 2."Jihad ad difa'ee"- The deffensive jihad. As for the deffesive jihad {like the one in Afghanistan right now}, i don't think any two muslims regardless of what sect, group or madhab they are from, will disagree that it is an obligation for muslims to defend their land if they are attacked by the kuffar, and it is this type the scholars say that one does not necessarily to have an ameer or the permission of the ruler to fight in this case, since it is that jihad has become "fard ayn" an individual obligation on those able within that particular country to repel these acts of trangression, so inshallah, as i said there is no dispute about this. However, the big debate in our times is with regard to the "Jihad al hujumee" - The offensive jihad, and the this case the objective of this jihad will be to make Allahs' word supreme in the land, which is just another form of dawah. This is why the definition the scholars give for this jihad is: "Muslims fighting {against} the kuffar, with whom one does not have any treaties, after inviting them to islam and their refusal of it, so as to make the word of Allah dominant" However, in light of the original question, no one was ever forced to accept is islam, they were given a fair choice{s}: accept islam, or pay the jizya and be safe, or we will fight you. They were fought not because they refused to accept islam but because the refused to give the jizya, for if they had paid the jizya as man did they would not have fought them. And it is this simple point is what many "moderate" modernist muslims fail to tell these kuffar and other muslims whenever they inquire as to what is jihad. i.e. yes, many times to muslim army many times the muslim army made the offensive, without they being attacked, but it was only after presenting these two choices to the kuffar and at least giving them 3 days notice to make a decision {as the scholars of fiqh mention in the chapters on jihad}. So, why do we to have to resort to lying and deception to please the kuffar by saying jihad is only for self-defence? And all these conditions i mentioned here are based on sound evidence from the quran and sunnah, with the understanding of the salaf of this ummah. For example:It is reported on the authority of Buraidah (ra ) that he said: "Whenever Allah's Messenger (saas ) charged someone with leadership in the army or sent someone on an expedition, he would admonish him to fear Allah (swt ) and be good to the Muslims who were with him: He would say: "Fight in the Name of Allah (swt ) and in Allah's cause and fight those who disbelieve in Allah (swt ). Do not take excessive booty and do not break treaties and do not mutilate (the enemies' dead) and do not kill children. When you meet your enemies from among the polytheists, call them to three virtues - if they respond (in a positive manner), respond them in like fashion and accept it from them and cease making war upon them: (i) Invite them to Islam, If they refuse to embrace Islam, then impose the jizyah upon them and if they agree to this, then accept it from them and cease fighting them. But if they refuse, then seek Allah's Help and fight them". {Muslim} Thus, this hadeeth this clear in showing that the kuffar were not just ambushed and made jihad against, as many may concieve, but rather they were given choices and jihad was only fought aginst them as a last resort after they refusing to accept islam and pay the jizya, now is this something we have to hide or apoligize for? Finally, i will say that 90% of the stuff i have recently read about jihad is based on jahl, hiding some texts and leaving out other or plain twisting the ayat and hadeeth from their clear, appearant meaning. So it is upon us to learn our deen properly from the authentic sources and to remain quite about that which we have know no knowledge. |
| NS |
| Re: jihad!!! [Was expansion of the Muslim empire jihad?] |
|---|
| Mujaahid |
| 11/02/01 at 10:42:31 |
| as salaamu 'alaikum wa rahmatullaahi ta'ala wa barakaatuh Brother assing may Allaah reward you, aameen. I had also read on this board and in other places about this concept of Jihaad being defensive only and had wanted to write something on this understanding. I think many of the Muslims today are confused to the fact that simply because there is only the defensive Jihaad in the world at the moment - then this is the only Jihaad in Islaam. Similarly there are some from whom the Muslims in the USA and west in general take their knowledge, who say that Jihaad is first the fighting of one's desires, and then only the fighting in self defence. Firstly this is wrong because of what brother assing has highlighted that when we talk of Jihaad in shar'iah it is the engagement of the enemy on the battle field to make the word of Allaah the highest - this is the definition that the scholars have given it. Secondly it really saddened me, and in cases frustrated me to see some of the influential leaders of the Muslims in the west say that in Islaam there is only defensive Jihaad. Subhan Allaah this is a dilution and great slander against the deen - are they then arguing or taking issue with the path of our prophet Muhammad SAW, and the khulafaa who came after him? During this period of Islaam the deen was carried in a two forked approach - the people were first invited to the deen of Allaah with fine preaching and with words, and then some of the lands were opened like this, and those people who did not accept Islaam - they were not fought because they did not come to the religion, they were only ever fought, as brother assing says, if they 1. refused to pay the jizyah and thereby 2. created the barrier in the land to prevent the Muslims from reaching past those lands to those which Islaam had not touched. So eventhough they were not fought because they did not accept Islaam they were fought, and this was offensive, because they stopped the spread of the deen - and this is not defensive Jihaad and this is not the Jihaad against one's desires, this is to raise arms and march forward offensively. It was done during the time of the prophet Muhammad SAW, how was Hijaz and Najd brought under Islaam if not through the tongue and the force against those who stood in the way of it's expansion? How was al Quds, Syria, Egypt, Algeria, Iraq, Iran and all the lands from the west of Africa to the East of India brought under Islaam if not through the offensive Jihaad and the preaching of the deen? Why then do some of those who have authority and whom the Muslims take their knowledge hide this, and claim that the opposite is true, and that arms were never taken against those who stood in the way of spreading the deen across the land? As brother assing says this was the way of the prophet SAW, the way of Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman, 'Ali and the righteous followers from the nation of Muhammad. This is our history brothers and sisters, and the people in authority over the Muslims today, especially in the west, should not dilute the religion for a short term ease or to please the Kuffar or to make Islaam more tenable to them. They will not be happy until they turn us from our religion and the Jihaad, offensive and defensive, will be until the day of judgement... Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi from Abdullah ibn Umar that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Blessing is in the forelocks of horses until the Day of Rising." [Muwatta of Imaam Malik] was salaamu 'alaikum wa rahmatullaahi ta'ala wa barakaatuh |
| Re: jihad!!! [Was expansion of the Muslim empire jihad?] |
|---|
| amal |
| 11/02/01 at 15:48:34 |
| slm, I can understand people saying that sometimes muslims had to take an offensive against those who stood in the way of calling people to Allah(swt) and that's an argument that can be supported from the Qur'an and sunnah(i.e the verse about there being no compulsion in religion,etc..). However, i do not understand the argument that non-muslims were fought not to convert them but because they refused to pay jizyah when they didn't prevent islam being dessiminated through da'wah. Are you saying that it's OK for muslims to declare war against non-muslims for solely economic benefit??? Because to me that's seems to be what you're saying.Please clarify with daleel from the Qur'an and Sunnah? The following is an excerpt from Shaikh Yusuf Al-Qardawi's book "Priorities of the Islamic Movement in the Coming Phase" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [color=red]A Debate that We do not Need Today[/color] [color=black] The realistic ideology we need is one that focuses on construction and work, not on haggling and debate. For when Allah wants to punish people, He preoccupies them with debate and denies them [serious] work. By debate, I mean debate on problems that are historical, purely hypothetical or have a controversial nature. A debate that we do not need, or would not benefit from today is that debate which is raised from time to time about the nature of military jihad (fighting) in Islam: whether it is a "defensive" Jihad for defending Islam's creed, sanctums and territories, or an "offensive" Jihad for spreading Islam in the world. Many of the contemporary scholars wrote on this topic, and have been divided into two groups as follows: Those who adopted the first opinion [that jihad should be defensive] include: Sayyed Rashid Reda, Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltut, Sheikh Mohammad Abdallah Diraz, Sheikh AbdelWahab Khallaf, Sheikh Mohammad AbuZahra, Sheikh Mohammad AlGhazali and Sheikh Abdallah IbnZeid AlMahmoud. Their argument is based on many verses from the Holy Quran, such as, (Fight in the Cause of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress limits, for Allah does not love transgressors) [Surat Al-Baqara: 190]; and (Therefore if they withdraw from you but do not fight you and [instead] send you [guarantees] of peace, then Allah has opened no way for you [to war against them]) [Surat AlNisa: 90] etc. The second group includes Allama Abul A'la AlMawdoudi, Imam Sayyed Qutb and others. Their argument is based on what they call "the Verse of the Sword" which to their claim, has abrogated all the verses that preceded it and were representing a phase that had ended. However, they have differed over the Verse of the Sword itself, being unable to determine unanimously which verse it is in the Quran. I believe that there is no call for this fierce controversy over this issue at present, for three reasons: [color=red]First:[/color] we Muslims have not discharged the duty of jihad that is compulsory for everyone of us in many Islamic countries to liberate the Muslim land from usurpers and aggressors in Palestine, Eritrea, the Philippines, Afghanistan, Tashkent, Bukhara, Samarkand, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and other Muslim republics (and cities) of the Soviet Union, and other similar places in China, Ethiopia and Thailand, etc. No Muslim can argue against the necessity of rescuing them from the hands of antiIslamic forces, and Allah's judgment in the Holy Quran included in the bollowing verse applies to them: "And why should not you fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are illtreated [and oppressed]? Men, women and children whose cry is, "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors, and raise for us from You one who will protect, and raise for us from you one who will help! " [Surat AlNisa': 75]. The Muslim Nation has not carried out this compulsory defensive duty, so how can it talk now of offensive jihad? [color=red]Second:[/color] offensive jihad, to those who advocate it, is removing the forces that block the path of Allah's servants and have taken it upon themselves to prevent Muslims from conveying the Word of Allah to people. But no force can stand in our way today if we act in earnest and devote our efforts to conveying our Call to the whole world. The spoken, written and televised word can be spread all over the world in all languages by radio, television, book, messages, the Press and the Muslim communities in all countries of the world. However, we are the most abysmally negligent people in this respect, if we compare our efforts to those of the men of Christian missionization and what they do to promulgate their doctrine and translate their Bibles to languages and dialects that may be counted by the thousand, sending their missionaries, male and female, to the four corners of the earth in hundreds of thousands, to the extent that they now aspire to convert us to Christianity so that we may follow their creed!! [color=red]Third:[/color] we depend on others for military power. Those against whom we want to launch our offensive jihad are the same people who make all sorts of weapons and sell them to us. But for them, we would be unarmed, defenseless and unable to do anything! That being the case, how can we talk of launching offensives to subject the whole world to our Message, when the only weapons we can muster are those given us by them and when the only arms we can carry are those they agree to sell us? [/color] I would just like to add that the ulema themselves could not reach to a consensus on the issue of offensive jihad, thus anyone who seeks information about this subject should consult a *knoweldgeable* scholar. |
| Re: jihad!!! [Was expansion of the Muslim empire jihad?] |
|---|
| BroHanif |
| 11/02/01 at 17:09:20 |
| [quote]That being the case, how can we talk of launching offensives to subject the whole world to our Message, when the only weapons we can muster are those given us by them and when the only arms we can carry are those they agree to sell us? [/quote] If that was the case then how was the battle of Badr started ? The Shabas had little resources, they came with stick, broken swords and few horses. Remember it is not the technology or armoury that gives victory, it is ALLAH. 313 vs 1000 ! C'mon man. Armoury and weapons are a means of jihad, if one does not have armoury then what do you do let the kufr rape your mother and wife in front of you ? It was the Muslims who invented Gunpowder, sadly we muslims lack the technological process nowadays. When the Habashis were practcing archery in Madina, they weren't stoped by the prophet saws. Where in the muslim world can you do this today ? Sadly, we muslims have forgotten jihad and the blame lies on us. |
| Re: jihad!!! [Was expansion of the Muslim empire jihad?] |
|---|
| Anik |
| 11/02/01 at 18:23:35 |
| asalaamu alaikum, The point I made about forced conversion and so on wasn't a rule; I stated that forced conversions WERE present in places as exception, and I meant in some cases, After having spoken to people who's family had to leave Iran as Zoroastrians due to this problem, as well as accounts of SOME mughal ruler's history, I am trying to point out that muslims as were not always justified in their actions. They make mistakes, they commit atrocities. Mughal emperors have kept counts of how many kaffirs they have executed and how many places of worhship they have destroyed (one estimate was 88,000). The kaffirs there don't complain for no reason about Mughal past, many women were raped, men killed. Again, this is to the best of my knowledge. I am also trying to stress that the action of an exemplary individual like the Prophet (SAW), who is blameless, and a Mughal ruler who persecuted many of his subjects cannot be compared, and thus ISLAM is left blameless. I have had the Mughal ruler debate with many-a-brother and sister, and it has led neither side to greater understanding. One criticism that we as muslims often get is that we don't criticize our own history and actions as a group of peoples (I'm not seconding that), but I am saying that while the BIG picture is great, to paint all muslim conquests as a pretty liberation of every people, I would disagree. And the demand for references is definitely necessary here, but it will not occur just yet on my part, and while I have passed my opinion, to prove my point would mean to enter into needless argument with my brothers and sisters and stir up bad feelings that are underproductive. I am sorry if I have upset anyone of you with my understanding. asalaamu alaikum. abdullah,. |
| Re: jihad!!! [Was expansion of the Muslim empire jihad?] |
|---|
| momineqbal |
| 11/02/01 at 21:14:54 |
| [slm], Brother Abdullah, I do not know which mughal ruler you are talking about. Please give your source of information. It seems so easy for us to trust things in print and coming from word of mouth that we dont take enough precautions to be careful. Aurangzeb for one i know has been slandered quite a bit by biased historians in India. There are lot of false stories in the history books about him, as well as stories that have been twisted. 49:6 O ye who believe! If a wicked person comes to you with any news, ascertain the truth, lest ye harm people unwittingly, and afterwards become full of repentance for what ye have done. |
| Re: jihad!!! [Was expansion of the Muslim empire jihad?] |
|---|
| Merimda |
| 11/02/01 at 21:45:01 |
| Salam,' <<The point I made about forced conversion and so on wasn't a rule; I stated that forced conversions WERE present in places as exception, and I meant in some cases,>> Sorry, my misunderstanding...I thought you were refering to the Caliphate era... Unfortunately my knowledge of the pre-modern history of the Indian Subcontinent is very little. <<However, i do not understand the argument that non-muslims were fought not to convert them but because they refused to pay jizyah when they didn't prevent islam being dessiminated through da'wah. Are you saying that it's OK for muslims to declare war against non-muslims for solely economic>> I think what is implied by a refusal to pay the Jizya is it is in essence a refusal to accept subjection under the protection of Islam. I think that is what the brother meant..So the economic aspect of the Jizya is really irrelevant.. it has to do more with what the Jizya symbolises. Allahu Alam..Correct me if I am wrong. Here is an example to illustrate my point..The following is from a document from the second half of the eight century concerning how the Jizya is to be collected from the Ahl Al dhimma in Iraq: " No one of the ahl al Dhimma should be beaten in order to exact payment of the Jizya, nor made to stand in the hot sun, nor should hateful things be inflicted upon their bodies, or anything of that sort. Rather, they should be treated with leniency. They should be imprisoned until they pay what they owe...it is not permissible for one person to be exempted and for another to have to pay. That cannot be done, because their lives and possessions are guaranteed safety only upon payment of the Jizya, which is comparable to tribute money." Abu Yusuf, Kitab al Kharaj (Cairo, 1382/1962-63)pp 122-125. << [quote]That being the case, how can we talk of launching offensives to subject the whole world to our Message, when the only weapons we can muster are those given us by them and when the only arms we can carry are those they agree to sell us? [/quote] If that was the case then how was the battle of Badr started ? The Shabas had little resources, they came with stick, broken swords and few horses. Remember it is not the technology or armoury that gives victory, it is ALLAH. 313 vs 1000 ! >> I believe you have misunderstood Sh. Qaradawi's point ( Unless I have misunderstood your comments) Correct me if I am wrong... When the Muslims decided to attack the caravan were they not under the impression that the Quraish were much less than a thousand.. thus they believed that they had a possible chance against them..When they found out that the Quraish had mustered a large army the Muslims were in a difficult situation.. they could not really turn back because Madina would be threatened and they only proceeded after much consultation. Anyway my point is that if the Muslims knew they were going to face an Army of a thousand from the on set would they have gone out without being sufficiently prepared? So I think what it is important to put your trust in Allah but you have to do your part as well. <<C'mon man. Armoury and weapons are a means of jihad, if one does not have armoury then what do you do let the kufr rape your mother and wife in front of you ?>> What Dr. Yusuf's point is how are you going to engage in offensive Jihad when the means is in thier hands...He is talking about those who wish to initiate an offensive Jihad...not those who have no choice but to defend themselves.. |
| Re: jihad!!! [Was expansion of the Muslim empire jihad?] |
|---|
| Rashid |
| 11/03/01 at 16:45:09 |
| [slm] [quote]That being the case, how can we talk of launching offensives to subject the whole world to our Message, when the only weapons we can muster are those given us by them and when the only arms we can carry are those they agree to sell us? [/quote] The shaykh has spoken clearly. Here we have a country like Saudi Arabia where their arms are sold to them by America. KSA is a country that posseses F-16's, tanks, APC's, and all kinds of weapons made in USA. Yet when Saddam ordered the attack on Kuwait the Saudi gov't ran to America "we cannot defend ourselves, help us!" Not only do they not make their own weapons, they do not use them even in self-defense! Compare this with the mujahideen in Afghanistan where their weapons were also given to them by America but alhmdulilah they mastered the use of these weapons and are now using them to defend against unwarranted agression. Also, unlike the sahabi at the time of Badr, we have weakened our imaan and preoccupy ourselves with topics such as "The Taliban oppress women and kill homosexuals" "Osama bin Laden is not a true Muslim" And I am not accusing anyone, this is a reminder for myself first. So along comes this topic of offensive and defensive jihad. I would like to add, when we are engaged in jihad against the nafs, is this not an offensive jihad? We take the offensive and strike first against the nafs and shaytan by going to the masjid, reading qur'an, stories of prophets and sahabi, etc. Everyday we should be on the offensive against shaytan, we should not allow shaytan to take even an inch of our territory (our souls). Similarly in the battlefield the tides change. Today the mujahideen are on the defensive, tomorrow inshallah they will strike and launch attacks against the unlawful invaders. [wlm] |
Individual posts do not necessarily reflect the views of Jannah.org, Islam, or all Muslims. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster and may not be used without consent of the author.The rest © Jannah.Org |