War

[Kaleo]

Hi everyone. I have coming here looking for answers. In particular, I was wondering if you could clarify Islams stance on war?

Muhammad went to war, so can war therefore be justified?

These are genuine question from a person who is interested in learning more about your religion.

[aadil77]

Islam is not a pacifist religion, we'll go to war to defend ourselves.

[جوري]

Name of Questioner

Hartman - Germany

Title

War Ethics in Islam

Question

I am not a Muslim. Yet I’m a peace-loving person and I am eager to know whether there are ethics that govern war in your religion, especially as we know and see what happens nowadays: gross violations of all ethics and teachings. Your earliest response will be very much appreciated.

Date

01/Apr/2004

Name of Counsellor

IOL Shari`ah Researchers

Topic

Relations during War

Answer

In The Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

Dear brother in humanity, thank you very much for having confidence in us, and we hope our efforts, which are purely for Allah's Sake, meet your expectations.

First of all, we would like to tell you that war is decreed in Islam in self defense. This indicates that aim behind war is to ward off aggression not to impose Islam as a religion. Referring to this, Allah Almighty says: “To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged; and verily God is most powerful for their aid.” (Al-Hajj:39)

Turning to the main topic of the question concerning war ethics in Islam, we would like to develop the whole issue while dealing with the following main points:

1-Personal Behavior of the Troops:

In war, as it is in peace, the instructions of Islam are to be observed. Worship does not cease in war. Islamic jurisprudence maintains that whatever is prohibited during peace is also prohibited during war. War is no excuse to be lenient with misbehaving troops. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, is reported to have said: “Beware of the prayer of the oppressed; for there is no barrier between it and Allah.” Here, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, differentiates between the oppressed believers and non-believers.

2-Whom to Fight:

Fighting should be directed only against fighting troops, and not to non- fighting personnel, and this is in compliance with the Qur’anic verse that reads: “ Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not, aggressors.” (Al-Baqarah: 190)

In one of the battles, a woman was found killed, and this was denounced by the Prophet saying "She did not fight" This will be further detailed under the instructions given to the armies and their commanding chiefs by the Prophet and his Caliphs.

3-The Prophet's instructions to Commanding Chiefs:

The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, used to instruct his commanding chiefs saying: “Fight in the cause of Allah. Fight those who deny Allah; Do not be embittered. Do not be treacherous. Do not mutilate. Do not kill children or those (people) in convents.”

4-Abu-Bakr's instructions to Usama's Campaign on Syria:

“Do not betray or be treacherous or vindictive. Do not mutilate. Do not kill the children, the aged or the women. Do not cut or bum palm trees or fruitful trees. Don’t slay a sheep, a cow or camel except for your food. And you will come across people who confined themselves to worship in hermitages, leave them alone to what they devoted themselves for.”

5-Abu-Bakr's Instructions to Yazid ibn-Abi Sufian:

“I give you ten commandments: don’t kill a woman or a child or an old person, and don’t cut trees or ruin dwellings or slay a sheep but for food. Dont burn palm trees or drown them. And don’t be spiteful or unjust.”

6-Maintaining Justice and Avoidance of Blind Retaliation:

None can be more illustrative in this respect than the words of the Qurt’an. Allah Almighty says: “ O ye who believe! Be steadfast witnesses for Allah in equity, and let not hatred of any people seduce you that ye deal not justly. Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty. Observe your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is Informed of what ye do.” (Al-Maidah: 8)

7-Medical and Nursing Services:

From the early days of Islam the sanctity of the medical profession was recognized. Christian and Jewish doctors were employed by the Islamic state since the days of the Umayyads, and some of them were even court and personal physicians to caliphs. Under the tolerant attitude of Islam, some of them got the chance to unfold their full scientific potential and thus contributed to the progress of medical knowledge.

Medical help was a right to all men in spite of religion or creed. That this was also extended to those amongst enemy. An example well known in the West is that of Saladin securing medical help to his opponent, Richard Lion Heart of England who was seriously ill during the Crusades. Saladin sent him his own doctor and personally supervised Richard's treatment until he became well.

In quoting this particular example, one dare say that such an attitude was quite different to the behavior characterizing the invading crusaders. When the crusaders entered Jerusalem on July 15th 1099, they slaughtered seventy thousand Muslims including women, children and old men. They broke children's skulls by knocking against the wall, threw babies from roof tops, roasted men over fire and cut up women's bellies to see if they had swallowed gold.

This description was given by Gibbon, a Christian writer, and commented on by Ludbig Wbo wondered how come after those horrible atrocities they prayed at the burial place of Christ for blessing and forgiveness (Draper/History of the Intellectual Development of Europe, Vol. 2, p. 77).

We do not mention this in bitterness or prejudice for every honest Muslim or Christian well knows that Christianity is something and many deeds of the crusaders are something else.

8-Prisoners of War:

For the first time in religious or sectarian history, Islam adopted an attitude of mercy and caring for the captured enemy. Unprecedented by previous legal systems, and long before the Geneva Convention, Islam set the rule that the captive is sheltered by his captivity and the wounded by his injury.

Previously, it was the custom for the captive to work for his food or get it through private means. The Qur’an made it a charity to feed the prisoners saying:

“Lo! the righteous shall drink of a cup whereof the mixture is of water of Kafur. A spring wherefrom the slaves of Allah drink, making it gush forth abundantly. Because they perform the vow and fear a day whereof the evil is wide spreading. And feed with food the needy wretch, the orphan and the prisoner, for love of Him. (Saying): We feed you, for the sake of Allah only. We wish for no reward nor thanks from you.” (Al-Insan: 5-9)

The Prophet instructed his Companions to be good to the captives. In one of his traditions, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, ordered his Companions saying: “ You should be good to the captives.”

Abu Aziz-ibn Umair, one of the captives of Badr battle, recalls:

“Whenever I sat with my captors for lunch or dinner, they would offer me the bread and themselves the dates, in view of the Prophet's recommendation in our favor (in that desert situation bread was the more luxurious item of food than dates)

As soon as any of them held a piece of bread, he would offer it to me. "Feeling shy, I would give it back to one of them but he would immediately return it to me."

Another, Thumama ibn-Athal, was taken prisoner and brought to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, who said: “Be good to him in his captivity.” When the Prophet went home he instructed to collect whatever food there, and ordered it sent to the prisoner.

When the Jewish tribe of Bani Qurayzah were captured, loads of dates were regularly carried to them, with the Prophet's instructions to shelter them from the summer sun and to provide them with water to drink.

From the legal point of view, Muslim opinion is unanimous on the prohibition of subjecting the captives to ill treatment by withholding food, drink or clothing.


9-The Fate of War Prisoners:

This was based upon the teaching of the Qur’an:

“Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.” (Muhammad: 4)

According to Islamic law, the captive belongs to the state and not to his captor. The ruler has the ultimate option, as he sees fit, of granting freedom or doing that after taking a ransom.

Among those whom the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, granted freedom was a poet called Abu-Azza who said to the Prophet: “I have five daughters who have no one to support them, so give me away to them as a charity and I promise never to fight you or help your enemies.

Abul-As Ibn Al Rabiae was freed for a ransom, which the Prophet later returned back to him. Later, the man embraced Islam.

Umarna Ibn-Athal was set free upon his promise not to provide the enemy with food. This gentle treatment touched the man’s heart and was then converted to Islam saying to the Prophet: "There was a time when your face was the most hated face to me, and there comes a day when it is the most loved.”

Sometimes captives were exchanged for Muslim captives in enemy hands. An acceptable ransom that was quite often carried out was to teach ten Muslim children to read and write. It is noteworthy that modern international law allows for setting free a prisoner of war on equivalent lines.

Personnel were set free upon their word of honor not to fight again, and they should not be ordered by their governments to go to battle again. If they break their promise, they might be punishable by death if they are captured again.


10-Nonbelligerents

Islam never fought nations but fought only despotic authorities. Islamic war was one of liberation and not of compulsion. The freedom of the liberated people to decide their religion has already been mentioned, and it was to ensure this freedom that Muslims fought. It is interesting to mention that when Muslims fought the Romans in Egypt, the Egyptian Copts sided with and helped Muslims against the Romans who were Christians like them. This was because Christian Egypt was suffering religious oppression by the Christian Romans to compel them to adopt their religious beliefs.

One of the earliest actions of the Muslims in Egypt was the assurance of religious freedom and the reinstatement of Bejamin as Bishop of Alexandria after years of hiding from the Romans in the western desert.

But religious freedom was but one aspect that Islam gave. Whether Arab or Egyptian, Muslim or Christian, Islam built up that FELLOWSHIP that humanity aspires to, in equality and fraternity .The story is well known of the running contest held in Egypt and won by an Egyptian to the dismay of an Arab competitor who was the son of `Amru Ibn Al-`Aas, governor of Egypt. The Arab hit the boy saying 'how dare you outrun me and I am the son of the nobility." Upon which Umar, the caliph, ordered the three all the way to Madinah, and ordered the Egyptian to avenge by hitting the offending Arab, saying: "Hit him back. Hit the son of nobility." Addressing `Amru, he uttered his famous saying: “O `Amru, since when have you enslaved people while their mothers have born them free.”

10-International Law:

The process of active intervention to stop or remove aggression is a development that modem international law has recognized.

The second world war for example was sparked by Germany's invasion of Poland, and drew into the fighting countries that were not direct parties to the conflict. One of the fruits of war was the creation of the United Nations in order to settle disputes between nations by peaceful means or indeed if necessary by a collective military force. No one should argue therefore that Egypt and the Roman Empire for example should have been left alone to solve their mutual problems. In modem times the rest of the family of nations consider it a duty to do something about it. Fourteen centuries prior to the establishment of the League of Nations and later the United Nations, Islam decreed such responsibility.

The legal principle of intervention to solve dispute was offered by the Qur’anic saying:

“If two parties of believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: But if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of God; but if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for God loves those who are fair.” (Al-Hujurat: 9)

11-Respect of Treaties and Agreements:

One of the major shortcomings of modern international politics is its meager regard to moral obligation. Time and again, treaties and agreements proved unworthy of the price of paper they had been written on. The most splendid produce of the human intellect in the field of international law might instantly vanish upon the call of greed or creed at this age that we wish to think has brought us to the epic of civilization.

And what is worse is that the most sophisticated achievements of scientific progress are often used as tools in the hands of Godless or God-disregarding policies: instead of being exploited 'in the cause of God.’

From the outset, Islam has emphatically prohibited treachery by taking the enemy by surprise attack. Recent examples of signing a pact or treaty with a nation as camouflage to hidden intent to attack it are quite contrary to Islam, as several quotations from the Qur’an reads:

“ O ye who believe! Fulfil your undertakings…”(Al-Maidah:1)

“Fulfill the convenant of God when you have entered into it, and break not your oaths after you have confirmed them; indeed you have made God your surety, for God knoweth an that you do.” (An-Nahl: 91)

If Muslims sense the treachery of any enemy with whom they had a treaty, they should declare to him the annulment of that treaty before embarking on war again.

“Thou fearest treachery from any group, throw back (their covenant) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms: for God loveth not the treacherous.” (Al-Anfal:85)

Although Muslims are bound to go to the help of their Muslim brethren who are religiously persecuted in the land of an enemy; they are not allowed to fulfill this duty if there is a treaty between the Muslim community and this enemy. Priority goes to honouring the treaty.

“But if they seek your aid in religion, it is your duty to help them, except against a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance. And (remember) God seeth an that you do." (Al-Anfal:72)

Now, Can any law be more idealistic!?

And above all, this is not a nicety to be taken or left by the state. It is a binding religious dictate overruling emotion and prejudice: otherwise it would be a grave violation of Islam.”

The above quotation is excerpted with slight modifications from www.islamset.com

You can also read:

Islam’s Stance on Prisoners of War

If you have any further comments, please don't hesitate to write back!

May Allah guide you to the straight path, and guide you to that which pleases Him, Amen.

Read more: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...#ixzz0lHeNXxkv

_____________________________________

p.s do you know of any country in the world that doesn't have at least an army?
is your war hatred specific to Islam or just in general as it so happens most wars of now a days are started by the west!~

all the best

[Argamemnon]

We should make a distinction between the peaceful religion Islam and Muslims. The Umayyad, Abbasid and Ottoman empires were pretty aggressive.. they did wage unnecessary/illegal wars. The Umayyad rulers didn't want people to convert to Islam in some of the newly conquered territories, because that would reduce tax income (people accepting Islam wouldn't have to pay jizya).

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Argamemnon]

Having said this, I should mention that the notion that Islam was spread by the sword is a myth. People never talk about the extremely aggressive nature of other empires throughout history. The Roman, Greek, Russian and many other empires were very very aggressive... but nobody seems to have a problem with this?

Have a look at this long list of Russo-Ottoman wars for example, most of these wars were started by the Russians who were extremely aggressive..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War

[Argamemnon]

:sl:

Someone had shown me a few hadith - authentic as far as I remember - which basically told believers to wage war till all nations accept Islam. I asked that person whether we should attack a peaceful nation such as Venezuela, which is far from hostile towards Muslims (quite the contrary), and he said 'yes'. This bothered me because these particular hadiths would contradict the glorious Qur'an. I have read the Qur'an several times from cover to cover in my own language, but my knowledge of Ahadith is pretty much non-existent..

:w:

[Kaleo]

Thank you τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ for such a detailed response. And thank you to everyone else who has replied to me.

It is my opinion that war can never be justified, nor can violence. Nobody here is perfect. While we do good acts, we are all sinners and we have all done wrong during our lives. So who then can be righteous enough to go to war, commit acts of violence and kill? I will never follow anyone who uses the sword, irrespective of their reasoning.

I would rather be tortured, spat on, dragged across the streets and executed on a cross than to use a sword. This is what happened to your prophet Jesus, who Muslims also believe in.

p.s do you know of any country in the world that doesn't have at least an army?
is your war hatred specific to Islam or just in general as it so happens most wars of now a days are started by the west!~

all the best

I do not know of any country that doesn't have an army but this doesn't make war acceptable for anybody.
I believe war is wrong, regardless of what country or religion it originates from.

All the best to you as well.

[جوري]

somethings in life are unpleasant but necessary .. no one can justify or love an amputation yet sometimes that is what you have to do to save the person.
No one can justify or love a debridement of the the face to the point of blindness but again if you're a diabetic with mucor infection that will inevitably kill you in as fast as three days then that is what must be done.. no one likes mutilation but if you have Necrotizing fasciitis then a surgeon has to go in there and fillet you.. life is a balance, priority and order of importance.. anyone can state their dislike of anything but what is the alternative.. once you put things in perspective then you have incredible alacrity for what must be done even if begrudgingly and of course you are entitled to your opinion but I hazard say if it were your life or that of a loved one at stake for whatever reason if you'd chose self-immolation over life!

all the best

[aadil77]

It is my opinion that war can never be justified, nor can violence. Nobody here is perfect. While we do good acts, we are all sinners and we have all done wrong during our lives. So who then can be righteous enough to go to war, commit acts of violence and kill? I will never follow anyone who uses the sword, irrespective of their reasoning.

I would rather be tortured, spat on, dragged across the streets and executed on a cross than to use a sword. This is what happened to your prophet Jesus, who Muslims also believe in.

No actually we don't believe anything of the sort happened to prophet Isa (Jesus, peace be upon him)

In islam we are commanded to fight against oppression and tyranny if faced by it. In fact abandoning war for such a cause is seen as a huge sin, its the total opposite of being 'righteous'. Pacifism is just cowardly and inneffective.

[Kaleo]

Thank you everyone for clarifying the issue of war for me.

We are all entitled to our own opinions. I am a pacifist and I have no problem with being called a coward for not believing in the use of violence.

I came here looking for an answer and you have provided that for me. While I know there are many positive things about Islam, I simply can not follow anyone who can justify war or violence. Thank you again and good luck to you all.

[aadil77]

Thank you everyone for clarifying the issue of war for me.

We are all entitled to our own opinions. I am a pacifist and I have no problem with being called a coward for not believing in the use of violence.

I came here looking for an answer and you have provided that for me. While I know there are many positive things about Islam, I simply can not follow anyone who can justify war or violence. Thank you again and good luck to you all.

I'm glad you found your answer, yes everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

In islam war or violence is used as a last resort, if you read about our prophet Muhammad and his followers you'll see for many years they tolerated humiliating conditions by arab pagans, they were oppressed and tortured for their beliefs, there were plots to assassinate the prophet, our prophet simply told everyone to have patience as their reward would be with Allah. Day after day believers would be persecuted. Dispite all this the prophet never told anyone to lift a finger, though the followers at the time were capable enough fight. Even after the prophet and all believers emigrated to madinah to escape, arab pagans still intent on stopping islam brought war to madinah, that is when Allah gave the command to retaliate. Self defence is only natural and I can't see how anyone would not use violence if their and their families lives are at risk

[Missinglinks]

Thank you everyone for clarifying the issue of war for me.

We are all entitled to our own opinions. I am a pacifist and I have no problem with being called a coward for not believing in the use of violence.

I came here looking for an answer and you have provided that for me. While I know there are many positive things about Islam, I simply can not follow anyone who can justify war or violence. Thank you again and good luck to you all.

I am also glad you found your answer, but I have one question...

if very bad people, would want to invade your country and rape ye daughter(s) and woman and spread michief there in your country while you are livin' in peace...
they don't negotiate nor talk and it is sure that they will invade your country...
would you defend yourself by war????

[Zafran]

Salaam

Jesus pbuh was not a pacifist even in the christain narration.

I would rather be tortured, spat on, dragged across the streets and executed on a cross than to use a sword. This is what happened to your prophet Jesus, who Muslims also believe in.

You forget about what Jesus pbuh is going to do to the people who didnt believe in him in christainty. When he comes back.

peace

[جوري]

very true:

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

[Kaleo]

if very bad people, would want to invade your country and rape ye daughter(s) and woman and spread michief there in your country while you are livin' in peace...
they don't negotiate nor talk and it is sure that they will invade your country...
would you defend yourself by war????

I would say to the invaders: You may kill my body but you will never kill my soul.

I will never lower myself to their level as I have been commanded to love my enemy. Love is more powerful than violence, in my opinion. It is through love that a person can show wrongdoers what is right.

very true:

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

The sword here is a metaphor for ideological conflict - not violent conflict. I can relate directly to this passage.

I am against my father for he does not believe in religion or God. He looks down on me because of my faith. We have an ideological conflict. But I have taken up the cross, regardless of what my parents say, because I want to follow the example that Jesus has given me. I want to lose my life for others: I want to serve, for the rest of my life, to the poor, to the needy and to anybody who seeks help. It is for this reason that I am seriously considering training as a (Catholic) priest, so that I may devout my life helping others. For me, that is a big leap of faith.

You forget about what Jesus pbuh is going to do to the people who didnt believe in him in christainty. When he comes back.

peace

I do not know what Jesus is going to do to those who don't believe in Christianity, could you tell me?

Take care everybody! You are very nice people and it is nice to have a discussion with you.

[جوري]

The sword here is a metaphor for ideological conflict - not violent conflict. I can relate directly to this passage.

I am against my father for he does not believe in religion or God. He looks down on me because of my faith. We have an ideological conflict. But I have taken up the cross, regardless of what my parents say, because I want to follow the example that Jesus has given me. I want to lose my life for others: I want to serve, for the rest of my life, to the poor, to the needy and to anybody who seeks help. It is for this reason that I am seriously considering training as a (Catholic) priest, so that I may devout my life helping others. For me, that is a big leap of faith.

How do you decide what is a metaphor and what isn't? 'son of God' seems like a metaphor given the many sons god has in the bible..
I have serious problems with Christianity and Christians in general. They say one thing and behave in another and a mere look at the world is enough but you may certainly have a read at such things as the 'stealth crusade' where christians feels it is their duty to rid the world of Muslims under the guise of love and freedom of course, and then there are the numerous absurd passages in the bible for which of course there is always an excuse, just as you have so kindly demonstrated above..

frankly from where we are standing, it doesn't seem like a metaphor, acting on it is also not a metaphor, and if we are to go down the metaphor route than I perhaps think the death of god, and his prayer to self before he forsake himself should be the biggest metaphor of all though I am not quite sure the meaning the theologians have worked out really befits the big self-sacrificial act of immolation!

all the best

[Kaleo]

How do you decide what is a metaphor and what isn't? 'son of God' seems like a metaphor given the many sons god has in the bible..
I have serious problems with Christianity and Christians in general. They say one thing and behave in another and a mere look at the world is enough but you may certainly have a read at such things as the 'stealth crusade' where christians feels it is their duty to rid the world of Muslims under the guise of love and freedom of course, and then there are the numerous absurd passages in the bible for which of course there is always an excuse, just as you have so kindly demonstrated above..

frankly from where we are standing, it doesn't seem like a metaphor, acting on it is also not a metaphor, and if we are to go down the metaphor route than I perhaps think the death of god, and his prayer to self before he forsake himself should be the biggest metaphor of all though I am not quite sure the meaning the theologians have worked out really befits the big self-sacrificial act of immolation!

all the best

Yes of course, many people who claim to be Christians have done a great deal of hurt! Look at our history, there is much violence. Even today, there is a pedophilia scandal going on in the church and even the Pope himself is involved. I can give you many examples of bad things that Christians have done. The point I'd like to make is that, all people do wrong, all people sin and it doesn't matter if you are Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu because everyone has at one point done the wrong thing.

We have a different interpretation of that passage. You interpret it differently to me and I am not going to argue over it.

I am going to leave now, unless you want me to stay and discuss more I am happy to discuss with you. May all of us find peace and lead a good life. Thank you again, take care of yourself and God bless.

[جوري]

Yes of course, many people who claim to be Christians have done a great deal of hurt! Look at our history, there is much violence. Even today, there is a pedophilia scandal going on in the church and even the Pope himself is involved. I can give you many examples of bad things that Christians have done. The point I'd like to make is that, all people do wrong, all people sin and it doesn't matter if you are Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu because everyone has at one point done the wrong thing.

We have a different interpretation of that passage. You interpret it differently to me and I am not going to argue over it.

I am going to leave now, unless you want me to stay and discuss more I am happy to discuss with you. May all of us find peace and lead a good life. Thank you again, take care of yourself and God bless.

You are welcome to stay on the forum of course.. we have said our bits and you yours.. but there is no point to leave simply because we don't see eye to eye on said issues!

all the best

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

War is justified since it exists.

In fact, I am in war with myself when I wake up in the morning.

Part of me want to wake up and another part does not.

In our religion, the main war is between the believers and the non believers.

Universally, you can think about it as the war between those who want to
wake up and follow the right way and those who do not. Moreover, like
in the example of the body, because we believe that we all live in the same
body, that is humanity and Allah's world, it is
important for us not only that the body itself would wake up, that is, as much
people as possible.

However, sadly, some people want to remain asleep and sleeping in this case
means being dead and also taking other people down with them. Therefore
we have to fight to make sure that this does not happen. In its core, this war
is, as you can see, a spiritual one. However, once you get to understand these
things you see that the powers of sleep and death, although they would
eventually loose, are more powerful then one
could think at first sight. And thus, the wars are not always spiritual, sadly.

[piXie]

.......................

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Do people just try to kill you in the street? This is an abstract situation.

[LauraS]

We should make a distinction between the peaceful religion Islam and Muslims. The Umayyad, Abbasid and Ottoman empires were pretty aggressive.. they did wage unnecessary/illegal wars. The Umayyad rulers didn't want people to convert to Islam in some of the newly conquered territories, because that would reduce tax income (people accepting Islam wouldn't have to pay jizya).

That's what I think, because I've read in a few threads that Islam was spread peacfully, but yet battles were fought to conquer land which meant there must have been bloodshed. The very word conquer suggested they overcame resistance. I've also read about the Ottoman Empire and they don't exactly sound like the nicest of rulers. I understand Islam is essentially meant to be a peaceful religion (as are most I suppose) but historically there would have been those who were more interested in expanision and power just like the Christian crusaders. Like I said before, at the end of the day people are people no matter what their religion.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

History makes wars not religion.

[LauraS]

lol! I feel the sort of skirts around the point a bit. :p History makes war or power hungry people.

[Zafran]

That's what I think, because I've read in a few threads that Islam was spread peacfully, but yet battles were fought to conquer land which meant there must have been bloodshed. The very word conquer suggested they overcame resistance. I've also read about the Ottoman Empire and they don't exactly sound like the nicest of rulers. I understand Islam is essentially meant to be a peaceful religion (as are most I suppose) but historically there would have been those who were more interested in expanision and power just like the Christian crusaders. Like I said before, at the end of the day people are people no matter what their religion.

There rulers may not have been nice guys but it was a quite a tolerant empire for its time.

[LauraS]

There rulers may not have been nice guys but it was a quite a tolerant empire for its time.

Still those ruled over weren't too happy about it.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Allah is the only ruler

[LauraS]

That doesn't stop there from being rulers on earth. In the past those in charge of the Ottoman Empire ruled over other countries, there's no other way of putting it. Wasn't the a law that one child out of every non-Muslim family was taken to be brought up Muslim and join their army?

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Well, history is but a moment.

The idea of rulership is primitive.

[Dagless]

In our religion, the main war is between the believers and the non believers.

Really? Don't you mean in your religion? Please justify this since I doubt most on here subscribe to whatever it is you follow.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

"Idolatry is more grievous than bloodshed. But do not fight them within the precincts of the holy Masque unless they attack you there ; if they attack you put them to the sword. Thus shall the unbelievers be rewarded. but if they mend their ways, know that Allah is forgiving and merciful.
Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. But if they desist, fight none except the evil doers" (Holy Quran, Cow Sura 2:190-193)

[LauraS]

It doesn't really argue against any of the points though does it. :S

[Dagless]

"Idolatry is more grievous than bloodshed. But do not fight them within the precincts of the holy Masque unless they attack you there ; if they attack you put them to the sword. Thus shall the unbelievers be rewarded. but if they mend their ways, know that Allah is forgiving and merciful.
Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. But if they desist, fight none except the evil doers" (Holy Quran, Cow Sura 2:190-193)

This doesn't answer what I asked you or justify what you said. You have quoted a surah which describes fighting only against those who are fighting you. You would not be the aggressor in this case.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

War is not necessarily an aggressive thing.

Physical war is always aggressive but not all wars are physical.

I said that our war is with the concept of "non-believing". In my eyes "non-believing"
is Idolatry.

This is because everybody believes in something. When I go out of the street and
go into a train I believe that it would go to its destination and not to some other random
place.

When people say they do not believe - we know that they mean they do not want
to believe that the world has an originator, that the world is governed. How can any
normal person think something like that? This is clearly foolishness.

When people adopt a line of thought like that it naturally leads them to believe in
artificial things, fairy tales. These things are idolatry. Thus secularism and idolatry
is the same. For instance, secular people believe that money rules the world while
for Muslim money is just an artificial way by which Allah governess stupid people.
Thus, making the idolatry of money.

Muslims cannot accept this idea and therefore fight against it. In my eyes, and I am
sure in the eyes of money, this fight by itself is very justified as it is for the best interest
of most people of the world to have a world based on Zakat and not on the very painful
economical system we have today.

I also think it helps to explain why the Muslim idea is not so popular in certain countries in
the west who seem to very like the current economical system for some unexplained reason.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

(Ahhm...correction, eyes of many)

[LauraS]

I also think it helps to explain why the Muslim idea is not so popular in certain countries in
the west who seem to very like the current economical system for some unexplained reason.

I think it's more to do with general lifestyle, it's why Muslims don't like Western socities either.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

So it is up to Muslims to change their life style to a way which would accommodate them more
to speak with westerners so that they would be better in doing the important task of spreading
the word of the Prophet.

I think that the problem is that we have here a case of an evil eye. The westerners have a certain
image of Muslims that is wrong and then instead of changing this image the Muslim world sometimes
adopts this image or at least does not stand up to change it.

Think about what we know from history - there were many periods where it seems that the only
problem other people had with Muslim lifestyle was jealousy (and I do not see any reason why it
shouldn't be like that again)

Also, I do not understand what lifestyle has to do with that - any person should live the way he
likes. In my eyes - Islam is a religion and it dictates the best lifestyle a person can live in for his
own best interest. I come out of a point of view that people want to do what is good for some and
when they do not do so it is mainly out of confusion.

[Dagless]

War is not necessarily an aggressive thing.

Physical war is always aggressive but not all wars are physical.

Aggressor was used in the context of initiator. It was not the most important part of the sentence.

I said that our war is with the concept of "non-believing". In my eyes "non-believing"
is Idolatry.

No, what you said was "In our religion, the main war is between the believers and the non believers." and I've seen you use similar terms in other threads. This is not the case and I see it as you attempting to cause hostility.

For instance, secular people believe that money rules the world while
for Muslim money is just an artificial way by which Allah governess stupid people.
Thus, making the idolatry of money.

Muslims cannot accept this idea and therefore fight against it. In my eyes, and I am
sure in the eyes of money, this fight by itself is very justified as it is for the best interest
of most people of the world to have a world based on Zakat and not on the very painful
economical system we have today.

The west are free to have the system they want. We avoid those things which are haram to us (interest), but we conform to the system, there is no fight to bring it down.

[LauraS]

So it is up to Muslims to change their life style to a way which would accommodate them more
to speak with westerners so that they would be better in doing the important task of spreading
the word of the Prophet.

I think that the problem is that we have here a case of an evil eye. The westerners have a certain
image of Muslims that is wrong and then instead of changing this image the Muslim world sometimes
adopts this image or at least does not stand up to change it.

Think about what we know from history - there were many periods where it seems that the only
problem other people had with Muslim lifestyle was jealousy (and I do not see any reason why it
shouldn't be like that again)

Also, I do not understand what lifestyle has to do with that - any person should live the way he
likes. In my eyes - Islam is a religion and it dictates the best lifestyle a person can live in for his
own best interest. I come out of a point of view that people want to do what is good for some and
when they do not do so it is mainly out of confusion.

I'm not saying any should change their lifestyle to suit the other culture. What I'm saying is each is used to their own way of living, likes it on the whole and has no wish to change to the other way. I don't think it is much to do with the Muslim economic system. I'm not jealous about how Muslims live, I'm quite happy with my own lifestyle.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Are you?

Do you have to go to work?

[Supreme]

*Subscribes to thread*

[LauraS]

Are you?

Do you have to go to work?

I'm a student, my money situation's fine at the moment but I'll probably need a job next year when I have my own house....where's this leading?

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

I do not like to go to work so much. The lifestyle that would best suit me is to
pray and study Quran, Hadith and other texts all day long. And for other people
also I think other lifestyles would be much better.

I think that for a lot of people we are not so happy after all with our lifestyle - but
the main reason we do not dedicate attention to changing that (which we can) is
because we dedicate to much time to fighting and disagreeing instead of cooperating.

[LauraS]

Everybody in every country has to work to survive. Working has nothing to do with a specific culture. I am happy with my lifestyle and I think if I never had a job life would be boring, working makes you're spare time worthwhile. Besides I plan to get a job I can enjoy and that's interesting.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

survive? what you mean by that? Do we live in the jungle?

[LauraS]

If no one worked we would have know hospitals, police, schools or shops to buy food. It would be like going back to prehistoric times when people didn't live beyond thirty. So yes really we do need to work to survive.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

1. People in the past lived just as long as we do.

2. People in the past did work.

3. People in the past worked to contribute to society and not to survive.

4. Society is required to support you by the fact that you are alive (for
instance - society is required to support people who are not capable
of working just like people who are).

5. Most people who work make more mess for society than benefit.
It is true - doctors in hospitals are important but most people work
in unimportant bureaucratic activities just for the sake of working.

[LauraS]

The people of the past weren't as healthy as we are today and there are many more imp0ortant jobs that keep society going. The point is everyone works across the world, it has nothing to do with a difference between east and west.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

The people of the past weren't as healthy as we are today and there are many more imp0ortant jobs that keep society going. The point is everyone works across the world, it has nothing to do with a difference between east and west.

1. Society keeps going because Allah makes it going we do not need to think that it is we who do that (otherwise we are just taking upon ourselves
un-required burden)

2. It has to do with the difference between religious and non-religious.

3. Most of the works people have today are devoted to make believers fight among themselves
(media, secular universities, all sorts of development of useless gadgets etc). If all these people would do
things which are truly useful we would be much better off (contrary to dedicating their lives to fight and
strife).

4. People today might be (not sure) physically healthier - but they are spiritually bankrupt. In fact, I think
that we are in one of the worst conditions ever from a spiritual point of view (which is not less in not more
important than the physical one)

[Zafran]

The people of the past weren't as healthy as we are today and there are many more imp0ortant jobs that keep society going. The point is everyone works across the world, it has nothing to do with a difference between east and west.

Thats not true at all it all - thanks to fast foods and many other unhealthy activities we are now more unhealthy and inactive then ever before. Just look at the the children and whats happening to them in our time.

Just to add not everyone has to work to survive - There are many people who dont work yet survive across the world.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Just to add not everyone has to work to survive - There are many people who dont work yet survive across the world.

That so true!!! (and unfair also)

[LauraS]

Zafran- The mortality rate from diseases was still higher in the past and thanks to proper healthcare systems and advances in medicine there is less risk from illness. Life expectancy is increasing, people are taller because they are better nourished so we must be helathier on the whole.

Not everyone has work, but if everyone decided they didn't need to then obviously we'd be in trouble this would mean we had no leaders, law or anything. It's no good sitting all day reading religious texts because at the end of the day we have to live as well. Gabriel Ibn Yus- are you suggesting religious people don't work? I really don't get what we're actually arguing here lol :S I think it stemmed from me saying that each culture is happy with their own lifestyle.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

People always do what they need to do - we all want to survive.

However, a lot of people today do things they souldn't. They do war and are driven
by useless ego. Most of our economic system is driven by these urges while if the
leaders of our economic system would be religious people and would be driven by
the wish to benefit their society we would be much better off.

[Zafran]

Zafran- The mortality rate from diseases was still higher in the past and thanks to proper healthcare systems and advances in medicine there is less risk from illness. Life expectancy is increasing, people are taller because they are better nourished so we must be helathier on the whole.

Not everyone has work, but if everyone decided they didn't need to then obviously we'd be in trouble this would mean we had no leaders, law or anything. It's no good sitting all day reading religious texts because at the end of the day we have to live as well. Gabriel Ibn Yus- are you suggesting religious people don't work? I really don't get what we're actually arguing here lol :S I think it stemmed from me saying that each culture is happy with their own lifestyle.

Majority of the world still doesnt have a good healthcare system and there life expectancy rate isnt very good either. The entire world as a whole isnt that healthy.

We're living even if we work or not - reading religious texts all day is still classified as living a life.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

We're living even if we work or not - reading religious texts all day is still classified as living a life.

Of course, I think it should also be highly encouraged by society as it makes you smarter and naturally fit to help society in ways which would be good to it.

[LauraS]

Of course people still have a life who read religious texts, but you have to work to sustain yourself too.

There are poorer countries that still have medical issues but at least it's not the whole world anymore.

Leaders who have considered themselves religious have caused enough war in the past for reasons of power. It true religious people who want peace and they don't tend to be the ones in power.

This is getting boring and I don't mean that rudely lol, are we actually going anywhere or even disagreeing very much? :p We have our way of living in the west, you have yours in the east, for the majority each is happy with their own life. Do we agree with that?

To summarise my point: Yes people can be happy with studying religion all day but if everyone did this and didn't go to work society would fall apart. If everyone was happy and religious there wouldn't be a complete break down of law and order but the fact is there are bad people out there whether they consider themselves religious or not.

[tango92]

^ you could say each culture is happy, but at the end of the day you can only talk about your own experiences.

i dont live in the east, im a born and bred londoner. in islam we believe in living life on Fitrah - the natural state of man. which includes things like marriage, working for a living etc. i was never religious until recently, and i found more contentment in an islamic lifestyle. im not just saying this because i want to believe it.

so many things in todays life have been made shallow.
eg:
kids study to ultimately make money from a good job. not because they love their subject or to help society.
relationships between opposite sex have become a means of short term satisfaction, even if a long term relationship is desired most of the time it ends prematurely.
babies are seen as mistakes
governments form to fill their pockets with money not the benefit of their people (expenses scandal? etc)
wealth becomes a means of opression not charity (margaret thatcher era?)
extreme stuggle for financial freedom (interest on an already epic mortgage??)
women are simply an object of desire, trophies for men. and this starts when they hit secondary education.
for the sake of social pleasure and entertainment we destroy our planet and our bodies (cigarettes, alcohol, obesity, labour explotation, global warming, deforestation)

so much of what is truly satisfying in life is lost. and this is a result of modern technology and social construct.
but hey the people just want their next chemical high asap, so the dating and alcohol and other weird dependencies continue...

[Zafran]

Of course people still have a life who read religious texts, but you have to work to sustain yourself too.

There are poorer countries that still have medical issues but at least it's not the whole world anymore.

Leaders who have considered themselves religious have caused enough war in the past for reasons of power. It true religious people who want peace and they don't tend to be the ones in power.

This is getting boring and I don't mean that rudely lol, are we actually going anywhere or even disagreeing very much? :p We have our way of living in the west, you have yours in the east, for the majority each is happy with their own life. Do we agree with that?

To summarise my point: Yes people can be happy with studying religion all day but if everyone did this and didn't go to work society would fall apart. If everyone was happy and religious there wouldn't be a complete break down of law and order but the fact is there are bad people out there whether they consider themselves religious or not.

Some poeple dont have to work to sustain themselves thats the point. Not everyone has to work. There are people out there that have that choice.

Yeah and those "poorer" countries have a larger population then the countries with medical help - so majority of the world is still in a crisis.

Not just religious people have created wars - non religous people have also created wars around the world as well.

I am from the west so I'm not sure where the east and west comparision comes from.

Its not about being happy in studying religion all day - its about having the ability to choose that lifestyle.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Some poeple dont have to work to sustain themselves thats the point. Not everyone has to work. There are people out there that have that choice.

Yeah and those "poorer" countries have a larger population then the countries with medical help - so majority of the world is still in a crisis.

Not just religious people have created wars - non religous people have also created wars around the world as well.

I am from the west so I'm not sure where the east and west comparision comes from.

Its not about being happy in studying religion all day - its about having the ability to choose that lifestyle.

Furthermore - nobody works to sustain himself - this is a fallacy.

We work to receive money - with this money we buy things like food - and it is these things
that sustains us.

most people get much more money than what their work is worth

Therefore - it would be more economical for society if they would stay home and read and educate
themselves so that their kids would be stronger than they are.

However we do not do that because we have this weird concept that everybody should be "listed" in
order to receive sustenance "from society". But this is wrong because we do not receive our right
to exist from society but rather from Allah - also society doesn't really produce anything but rather
receive 99% of what it gives to its individual parts - thus society can only decide how much to give
each of us.

This is very important to understand because, frankly, most of us receive much less than we deserve
while some few individuals take a lot more than they deserve without anybody raising the slightest
objection.

In other word the modern concept of work is simply slavery in disguise - which in turn is punishment
for stupidity.

[LauraS]

So what do you suggest happens to society if every stays at home to study and don't run hospitals or there are no police? You can speak of some utopia where everyone has found God so do no wrong but at the end of the day that will never happen and even religious people can be bad. I just want to know how this society would work.

[tango92]

working. earning a lawful living is part of the sunnah and worship of Allah. it is a great test of faith when a person is put on the path of knowledge, because they must now share priority justly between their worldy life and study. so dont be so quick to pack up your bags and roam the land in search of knowledge, Allah has put you in your place in society for a reason.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

working. earning a lawful living is part of the sunnah and worship of Allah. it is a great test of faith when a person is put on the path of knowledge, because they must now share priority justly between their worldy life and study. so dont be so quick to pack up your bags and roam the land in search of knowledge, Allah has put you in your place in society for a reason.

We seem to live in a society which does not remmber what it means to work anymore.

Growing a pottato is work.

Building a wall is work.

Sitting in an office and not knowing what it is you do is not work.

At best it is slavery. At worst it is a complete waste of time.

All I am saying is that people should stop doing things they do not know for what
they are good just because they recieve a "pay-check" - the way from there to
wickedness is very short.

[LauraS]

You haven't answered my question though, what about law enforcement? There are many more jobs in this day and age that have a purpose we can't just revert back to the medieval times.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

You haven't answered my question though, what about law enforcement? There are many more jobs in this day and age that have a purpose we can't just revert back to the medieval times.

These jobs are around 7% of all working force.

If you notice - kids in school do not get any education on how to be a policemen, farmer, doctor, nurse
etc...

I think that if you would teach everybody who to do these things - you can develop easily
a system by which people would have to work once a week or not more than three hours a day.

For instance - anybody could be a taxi driver. Let's say that you would be required to be a taxi
driver for once a week.

So why isn't it like that? Because people today depend upon their work of being a taxi driver - however
this is just because we live in a jungle and we cannot have a real civilization based on what is good
for everybody because we are afraid of our neighbors.

And why? Because we recieve very bad and defected education - which prevents us from uniting
and really having a powerful society.

We have to start acknowledging the fact that our main job today is to share our riches with
others.

In fact - most office environments are simply horrible and create cruel and weak people - it just
encourages it.

[Zafran]

You haven't answered my question though, what about law enforcement? There are many more jobs in this day and age that have a purpose we can't just revert back to the medieval times.

Nobody said we should just revert back to medieval times? - we cant even if we tried. That time has gone.

[LauraS]

We have developed now and our society is as such that, as Zafran has said, it is impossible to change greatly. To change things in such a fashion would cause a complete break down.

[Zafran]

We have developed now and our society is as such that, as Zafran has said, it is impossible to change greatly. To change things in such a fashion would cause a complete break down.

Salaam

This is not what I meant. Things can be changed greatly and sometimes have to be for example slavery was an important element in the worlds economy however later was abolished and alternative methods were used for economic and social benefit.

Its happend before it can easily happen again - just needs will power.

I'm also not sure what you mean by developed? Just because we are developed economically now doesnt been that we wont be less developed or more developed in the future.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

We have developed now and our society is as such that, as Zafran has said, it is impossible to change greatly. To change things in such a fashion would cause a complete break down.

Mircales happen.

[LauraS]

Well, we'll make sure to discuss it further if it does! :p

[tango92]

We seem to live in a society which does not remmber what it means to work anymore.

Growing a pottato is work.

Building a wall is work.

Sitting in an office and not knowing what it is you do is not work.

At best it is slavery. At worst it is a complete waste of time.

All I am saying is that people should stop doing things they do not know for what
they are good just because they recieve a "pay-check" - the way from there to
wickedness is very short.

office work is not slavery you get paid. would you rather they go hungry? and i doubt people sitting in offices have no clue what they are doing, of course they know their work is going to help their company and thus support their countrys economy etc.
but i think the majority of people are doing 'useful' work anyway. but i do accept their is a rigid hierachy in the economy, mostly atoped by wealthy individuals and governments who can therefore influence our society. so people arent really working because they love what they do, but because they chase money to make it up the ladder. unfortunately this is the way of life for humans since the beginning and not really a 'modern' problem.

i guess thats just our nature and the system ordained by Allah. which is why we have zakat etc and work for the sake of Allah. fesabeelillah

you could always become a communist though lol.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

office work is not slavery you get paid. would you rather they go hungry? and i doubt people sitting in offices have no clue what they are doing, of course they know their work is going to help their company and thus support their countrys economy etc.
but i think the majority of people are doing 'useful' work anyway. but i do accept their is a rigid hierachy in the economy, mostly atoped by wealthy individuals and governments who can therefore influence our society. so people arent really working because they love what they do, but because they chase money to make it up the ladder. unfortunately this is the way of life for humans since the beginning and not really a 'modern' problem.

i guess thats just our nature and the system ordained by Allah. which is why we have zakat etc and work for the sake of Allah. fesabeelillah

you could always become a communist though lol.

Slaves also get paid - if they won't get paid they will not work.

Office work is slavery because a free man can always find ways to
increase his income while an office worker has a fixed salery which
would neither grow or go down by the effort of his work.

The modern western world does not give Zakat - and this is where
the problem begins.

[Amat Allah]

"Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah's Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Quran. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success. (111) "

Surat Al Maidah


"And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the Cause of Allah, and for those weak, ill-treated and oppressed among 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." (75) Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (Satan, etc.). So fight you against the friends of Shaitan (Satan); Ever feeble indeed is the plot of Shaitan (Satan). (76)"


Surat Anisaa


"Permission to fight is given to those (i.e. believers against disbelievers), who are fighting them, (and) because they (believers) have been wronged, and surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory (39) "


Surat Al Hajj

"And We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers - of a lesser degree). (45)"

Surat Al Maidah