/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Offensive Jihad



Holly3278
08-16-2014, 06:00 AM
Hey everyone. Can someone please clarify to me about Offensive Jihad? Is it true that Islam allows things like what Islamic State in Iraq is doing?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
ardianto
08-16-2014, 06:10 AM
Hey Holly, this is Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) statement on ISIS

ISIS teachings against sharia: MUI - ANTARA News
Reply

Holly3278
08-16-2014, 06:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ardianto
Hey Holly, this is Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) statement on ISIS

ISIS teachings against sharia: MUI - ANTARA News
Thank you very much Ardianto.

From what I recall, the top religious (Islamic) authority in Egypt also condemned ISIS.
Reply

'Abd-al Latif
08-16-2014, 12:14 PM
Conclusive scholarly opinions on ISIS







The following are views from various Muslim scholars and individuals on ISIS. The list by no means represents any endorsement of those listed by Islam21c or MRDF.

Some conclusive scholarly opinions concerning ISIS and their actions

The Syrian conflict has raged on, leaving conscious Muslims experiencing an agonising dilemma: to watch helplessly while thousands are oppressed and killed or to help with whatever is in their capacity. A number of Muslim youth have opted to join the revolt, offering their lives to the cause. This has prompted the government to adopt or suggest punitive actions against them citing fear that they would become ‘radicalised’.[1] Years prior to this rather uncertain position assumed by the British government, scholars in Syria and abroad had warned foreigners of travelling to fight in Syria. This was not due to fears of ‘radicalisation’ as these are not substantiated by any empirical evidence, but rather for concerns that the course of the revolution would be hampered since manpower was never required as much as financial and medical resources.[2]

Years into the mass uprising, certain elements sprung up and spread in the revolution, that severely stalled progress against the Syrian regime. In addition to this, certain groups began perpetrating crimes against Syrian fighters through internal provocation and conflict[3] and through targeting aid workers and civilians[4], whilst following a warped reading into Islam unrecognised by countless Syrian and international scholars.[5] [6] Scholars had previously communicated their position to the masses, but their incapacity to take these scholars seriously[7] developed the catastrophe the scholars had warned of. The catastrophe culminated in predominantly misinformed outsiders bolstering the strength of the ‘Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’ (ISIS), duped by the group’s buzz-words (Khilāfah, Bay’ah, Amīr al-Mu’minīn, Hijrah and so on). In reality, if ISIS are not part of Assad’s regime as some claim[8], they have either been severely infiltrated by the regime or their ideology is starkly unrelated to Islam and critically misguided.

ISIS have not only weakened the fighters in Syria against Bashar, but have murdered arbitrators and committed heinous crimes against Muslims. The regime has benefited greatly by the presence of ISIS, even avoiding them in pursuit and attack.[9] ISIS have furthermore shackled the progress of some of the most effective Islamic rebel groups by waging war on them for their refusal to ‘pledge allegiance’ to them and to their warped ideology. The government and media suggest that many of those who have gone to fight in Syria have joined ISIS while recent videos might be seen to confirm these claims.[10] Assuming these claims to be accurate, it becomes binding upon those who are sincere in yearning for an end to the oppression to reveal the unmistakable reality.

Sadly, many eager individuals do not recognise the authority of Syria’s scholars, dismissing their views while accusing others of being “politicised”. Who did they follow and what did they risk? No doubt the scale of the crisis in Syria is unparalleled, thus what is at stake for those who travel there is most probably death. Death will lead to Paradise or the Hellfire. For those who opted to join ISIS, on what basis and through what justification are they willing meet Allāh when this faction has shed the blood of thousands unjustly? The question remains, did these individuals refer to the Book of Allāh, the injunctions of the Messenger salla Allāhu ‘alayh wasalam and the guidance of our leaders in understanding and faith, the recognised scholars of Islam, before embarking on this ākhirah-focused risk? Those who truly care for the course of the revolution and desire that it achieves the best end will categorically stop at the injunction of Allāh if nothing else. If our pride fails to lend Syrian scholars their worth, take the following international statements and verdicts regarding ISIS, issued by the following diverse list of scholars.[5] [6]

Most scholars used the Arabic abbreviation ‘Dā’esh’ in reference to ISIS. ‘Dā’esh’ has been substituted for ISIS for the convenience of the reader.

Sheikh Abu Abdullah al-Masry:
Sheikh al-Masry was previously a member of ISIS but withdrew from them on the basis of their ideology and methodology. He justifies his withdrawal by mentioning ISIS’ defamation of the people of Syria, claiming they were ideologically misguided[11], asking how this could be the case if the Prophet salla Allāhu ‘alayh wasalam said: ”If the people of Shaam corrupt, there is no good in you.”

The Sheikh adds:
“The behaviour of many elements in ISIS including leaders consistently is offensive towards the people of Syria and its Mujāhidīn, accusing them of misguidance in belief and action.” He further said: “They moreover repeatedly accuse the people of Syria and the Free Syrian Army (FSA) of disbelief (Kufr).” The Sheikh also argued that ISIS cannot be theoretically classified as Khawārij although practically this may be the case since they throw around accusations of disbelief without evidence and without understanding the gravity of such a charge. Rather, they may indict someone as a disbeliever merely on the grounds of disagreeing with them. Many of them believe that the people of Syria are originally apostates before creating justifications to this effect, raising weapons in their faces for the most trivial of matters.

Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Tarifi:
Sheikh al-Tarifi is a Researcher in the Ministry of Islamic Affairs in Riyadh. The Sheikh is deeply erudite in the sciences of Islam, known for his profound ability to retrieve evidences and issue meticulous verdicts. Among his teachers are Sheikh Abdul Aziz b. Abdullah b. Baz, Faqih Abdullah b. Abdul Aziz b. Aqeel and Sheikh Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Shanqeeti. The sheikh has an extensive number of printed works.[12]

He states:
“It is impermissible for anyone to make his group or party a milestone against which loyalty and hostility are measured, such that he believes that allegiance and leadership should belong to him exclusively. Whoever believes that sole allegiance applies to him (or his party) from amongst all Muslims, then upon him apply the words of Allāh: “Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects (all kinds of religious sects), you (O Muhammad salla Allāh ‘alayh wasalam) have no concern in them in the least.”[13]“ The Sheikh added: “it is incorrect that while in a state of fighting and factions that one group should request individual and general allegiance and all that it entails. The allegiance is to the Jihād, constancy, patience and reform. It is incorrect that one individual who leads a particular faction to call himself Amīr al-Mu’minīn (the leader of the Believers), rather he should call himself the leader of the army, the battalion or the battle. General leadership is determined by Shūrā (consultation) between believers, not for an individual to assume. Titles cause exclusivity that can lead to dispute, conflict, strife and evil… [Therefore], participating with ISIS so long as it does not agree with the law of Allāh, independent of it is impermissible.”

Sheikh Sulaiman b. Nasser al-Alwan:

The Sheikh began pursuing knowledge at the age of fifteen. He has written comprehensive explanations of Hadīth books including Sahīh al-Bukhari, Jāmi’ Abū Issa al-Tirmidhi, Sunan Abī Dāwūd, Muwata’ Mālik among many others.[14] He quotes:
“Al-Baghdadi is not the Khalīfah of the Muslims for him to do whatever he pleases; rather he is a leader of a faction. Requesting a pledge of allegiance, killing those who refuse is the action of an aggressor, not the action of a person of good and righteousness.” He further said: “If his own leader does not agree with his actions, how can he expect allegiance from others?”

Sheikh Muhammad b. Salih al-Munajjid:


Sheikh Mohammad al-Munajjid is a renowned scholar of Islam with an array of recognised works (including IslamQA.com). His teachers include Sheikh Abdul Aziz b. Abdullah b. Baz, Sheikh Abdullah b. Abdul Rahman b. Jibreen and Sheikh Abdul Rahman al-Barrak. He is currently the imām of the Mosque of Omar b. Abdul Aziz al-Khobar.[15] He says:
“If a group thinks, for example, that it has established the Islamic state, its leader is the ‘Leader of the Believers’, that he should be listened to and obeyed by everyone, that anyone not under his command has rebelled against him, that [this ‘state’] has the authority to draw up borders, elect leaders over towns, that it has authority over public wealth, petrol, wheat and so on, that others should forcefully submit to them while they can stop whoever they want, that they have the sole authority of establishing Islamic courts and judges and that every court besides theirs is void, it has deviated. This will no doubt create competition over control of regions and eventually lead to a great Fitnah and bloodshed.”

Sheikh Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi:

Sheikh Muhammad al-Maqdisi is considered the guide of the ‘Jihadist Salafist’ movement in Jordan. His name is Issam Barqawi but is famously known as Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi. Far from siding with ISIS,[16] he says in a letter to the Mujāhidīn of Syria after hearing of ISIS and their behaviour with other fighters:
“…and we do not feel ashamed to declare that we are free from the actions of those who dare spill the blood of Muslims whoever they may be.” He further added: “How can you be expected to accommodate all Syrians including Christians and other sects [if you cannot even accommodate other Muslims]?”

Dr. Hassan Saleh b. Hamid:

Dr. Hassan Saleh has a PhD in the principles of Fiqh and Sharī’ah, he is the Director of the Institute of Higher Islamic Education at the Umm Al-Qura University in Makkah and is a Member of the (Islamic) Advisory council.[17] He says:
“No one going to Syria to fight is excused to be part of al-Baghadi’s faction for even a moment… they are a faction that brings Fitnah, whenever they are called to a court for religious arbitration they turn away and whenever a truce is declared, they reignite the war.”

Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Fawzan:

Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Fawzan is a member of the Council for Human Rights, a Professor in Islamic Jurisprudence and the Head of the Department of Comparative Jurisprudence at the Islamic University of Imam Muhammad b. Saud in Saudi Arabia.[18] He says:
“ISIS is a rogue, external criminal organisation. Whoever knows of what afflicted us in Iraq and Afghanistan and the blood that was spilled unjustly at the hands of some ignorant individuals in our nation will understand the gravity of what is happening in Syria.”

Dr. Abdul Karim Bakkar:

Dr. Abdul Karim Bakkar is one of the leading authors in the field of education and Islamic thought, who seeks to provide a deep-rooted analysis into matters concerning Islamic civilisation, renaissance and Da’wah. He has more than 40 books in this area. Dr. Abdul Karim Bakkar is a member of the Advisory Board for the Islam Today magazine (Riyadh).[19] He says:
“I met a number of students of knowledge and Islamic jurists returning from Syria. I swear by the One besides whom there is no god that the only thing they spoke about were the repulsive actions of ISIS and their crimes. ISIS and the Assad regime are two faces of one evil.”

Dr. Shafi al-Ajmi:
Dr. Al-Ajmi sought knowledge under the supervision of Sheikh Muhammad b. Saalih and Sheikh Yahya al-Yahya. He studied at the University of Imam Muhammad b. Saud and is now the Imām of al-Ghazali Mosque in Kuwait.[20]He quotes:

“I have not heard of a single scholar inside or outside of Syria who has praised this faction, had good suspicion of them or defended them, rather they have unanimously agreed that they are aggressors. Al-Baghdadi’s aim, since entering Syria is to weaken the fighters and he has indeed weakened al-Nusra Front and Ahraar al-Shaam and continues to do so.”

Sheikh Abu Basir al-Tartusi:

Sheikh Abu Basir al-Tartusi has played the effective role of the Syrian revolution’s Mufti. It is said that Sheikh al-Tartusi was the first Arab fighter to travel to Afghanistan in 1981, accompanying Abdullah Azzam on one of his trips. He has authored many books and is the founder of several of the revolution’s coordination groups.[21] He says:
“The group known as ISIS are from the fanatical Khawārij, rather they have surpassed the Khawārij in many of their characteristics and actions, combining between fanaticism, aggression, hostility and shedding inviolable blood.” He further said: “We call upon all sincere individuals who have been fooled by them while still with this misguided group to severe their ties with it and to declare their freedom from it and its actions.”

Sheikh Abdullah Saad:

The Sheikh and notable Muhadtih Abdullah b. Abdul Rahman b. Mohammed Al-Saad Al-Mutairi is one of those at the forefront of 20th and 21st century Muslim scholars. His teachers include, Sheikh Abdul Aziz b. Baz, Sheikh Mohammed b. Saalih and Sheikh Abdullah b. Abdul Rahman al-Jibreen. He has authored tens of books and has explanations of Bukhāri, Sunan Abī Dāwūd, Jāmi’ al-Tirmithi and others.[22]He says:
“I plea to whoever joined this faction (ISIS) to leave it and move away from it, and for its leaders to return to the truth and to repent to Allāh from the grave mistakes they have fallen into…”

Sheikh Abdullah al-Mahiseny:

Sheikh al-Mahiseny is a specialist in Islamic Jurisprudence, acquiring a PhD in Comparative Fiqh in the subject: “Rulings Concerning War Refugees in Islamic Jurisprudence.”[23] He says:
“By Allāh, I have never witnessed the scholars who speak about matters of Jihād agree on criticising and opposing a Muslim movement as they have agreed on condemning ISIS.” Sheikh Mahiseny concluded by saying: “I implore you by Allāh O Baghdadi to allow a general Islamic court mediate to uphold the injunctions of Allāh.”

Sheikh Adnan Mohammed al-Aroor:

Sheikh Adnan al-Aroor is currently the Director of Research and Publishing in Riyadh. He grew up seeking knowledge in Syria under several scholars including Sheikh al-Albani and Sheikh b. Baz.[24] He is one of the most notable scholarly icons of the Syrian revolution and has a multitude of published works. Sheikh al-Aroor says, directing his question at ISIS:
“Did Allāh set conditions that must be met before accepting that the Qur’ān arbitrate [in the affairs of difference]? Then where did you get these conditions [that you set] from? Why do you leave military fronts such as Homs and dedicate your efforts to the areas near the Turkish borders? … Who are the people of religious authority (ahl al-hal wal-’aqd) who you consulted before establishing your ‘state’? Do you aim to overthrow the sectarian dictator or to fight others [who want to achieve this]? … What is your Islamic proof that justifies your pledge to someone unknown?”[25] He furthermore states: “ISIS are either Khawārij or infiltrated by the [Syrian] regime. It is composed of three groups of people: brutal Takfīrīs, wicked infiltrators and people deceived by them.”

The Scholars of Aleppo Front:

The Scholars of Aleppo Front issued a statement encouraging the sincere members of ISIS to leave this faction and join the legitimate revolutionary forces in Syria for the crime that has been perpetrated by this group, including:
Accusations of disbelief (takfīr), their shedding of inviolable blood without a second thought, kidnappings and documented armed robberies of weapons and ammunition from other rebel factions, their refusal to allow the Sharī’ah to arbitrate between them and the other factions and sowing the seeds of discord between fighers. ISIS’ takfīr sometimes extend to the entire population of Syria. This includes takfīr boldly levelled at the Free Syrian Army, accusing Ahraar al-Shaam that they are misguided ‘Surūrīs’ and that al-Nusra Front have defied their alleged ‘Khalīfah’.[26]

A Joint Statement of 47 Scholars in Saudi Arabia including Al-Ghunaymaan, Al-‘Umar, Al-Mahmoud and Al-Jalali Al-Mahmoud

The joint statement asserted that it is impermissible and of tyranny for one faction to impose itself as the only holder of legitimacy and that it is necessary that all other groups pledge allegiance to it without consulting the Muslims, otherwise they become of the Khawārij and their blood becomes permissible. It argued that this is the main reason for divisions and internal fighting. Sheikh Hamoud b. Ali al-Omari added: “The reality of the matter is, every drop of blood shed between the (rebel) factions in Syria is due to al-Baghdadi’s refusal to allow the Sharī’ah to arbitrate while implementing his own innovated Sharī’ah.”

There is no act, the punishment for which has been mentioned more sternly than that of killing a believer intentionally where a collection of five severe retributions have been listed:
“But whoever kills a believer intentionally – his recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide eternally, and Allāh has become angry with him and has cursed him and has prepared for him a great punishment.”[27]

Conclusion

Above are only some of the verdicts issued against ISIS by Muslim scholars. Such an agreement between scholars, analysts and intellectuals across the board should shake the heart of any individual who has participated in hampering the revolutionary effort while imposing an innovated ideology on its people. This neither pleases Allāh nor is it to the betterment of Syria. Syrians are in no need of further repression. Sincere individuals who have joined ISIS believing it endorses the true purpose of Islam should rush to change course and avoid further gambling with their permanent abode, and with a Syrian future that balances on a knife’s edge.

Source: Islam21c | Articulating Islam in the 21st Century

Notes:

This article is presented for information purposes, and is not an official view of MRDF or Islam21c.
[1] Growing fears over Britons radicalised in Syrian conflict - Crime - UK - The Independent

[2] A Plea from Syria | Islam21c

[3] http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News...-in-Syria.html

[4] Concerns for five aid workers taken away in Syria · TheJournal.ie

[5] http://eldorar.net/science/article/9246

[6] http://www.almokhtsar.com/news/ Title/author: أقوال العلماء والدعاة في داعش / إبراهيم بن عبد الرحمن التركي

[7] http://www.islam21c.com/politics/ass...isils-actions/

[8] http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-isl...orists/5365981

[9] http://syriageneva2.org/?p=242&lang=en

[10] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27947343

[11] http://aseft-alshamal.org/?p=1107

[12] http://ar.islamway.net/scholar/1223

[13] Al-Qur’ān 6:159

[14] http://ar.islamway.net/scholar/245

[15] http://ar.islamway.net/scholar/44

[16] http://www.aljazeera.net/news/pages/...5-972bccf35cdc

[17] http://ibnhomaid.af.org.sa/

[18] https://twitter.com/Abdulazizfawzan

[19] http://www.drbakkar.com/index.php?op...d=55&Itemid=53

[20] http://islam-call.com/authors/v/id/1228/

[21] http://www.al-akhbar.com/node/201838

[22] http://www.alssad.com/publish/article_39.shtml

[23] http://mhesne.com/index.php?option=c...=59&Itemid=121

[24] https://www.paldf.net/forum/showthread.php?t=614220

[25] http://albadee.net/news/12989/

[26] http://halabnews.com/news/42813

[27] Qur’ān 4:93

DISCLAIMER: All material found on Islam21c.com is for free and is for information purposes only. All material may be freely copied & shared on condition that it is clearly attributed to Islam21c.com [hyperlinked] as the original source. The views expressed on this site or on any linked sites do not necessarily represent those of Islam21c.com
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
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
Ahmad H
08-16-2014, 02:59 PM
Jihad is only allowed for defensive purposes. Islam was never spread by the sword. When Muslims took up the sword, it was because they were being persecuted and because the disbelievers were a threat to the existence of Islam at the time. The command for Jihad by the sword was given after Muslim suffered for 13 years of Meccan oppression.

Let it be clear that Islam never allows anyone to use force to subjugate anyone else to the religion. Groups like Boko Haram, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, etc., are all wrong because they attack innocent people. They have no bearing on Islam and what they do is not Jihad, even though they claim it. They tarnish the name of Islam.

Muslims can only do Jihad when they are being threatened and killed because they are Muslims and for no other reason. The call for Jihad is given by the appointed Imam of the time. No person or group can collectively claim with a self-appointed leader that they can do Jihad. Only an Imam appointed directly by Allah can do so. They either have to be a Muhaddith, or a Khalifah. Anything else I say will simply be a digression, but this is the truth of the matter.
Reply

'Abd-al Latif
08-16-2014, 03:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmad H
Jihad is only allowed for defensive purposes. Islam was never spread by the sword. When Muslims took up the sword, it was because they were being persecuted and because the disbelievers were a threat to the existence of Islam at the time. The command for Jihad by the sword was given after Muslim suffered for 13 years of Meccan oppression.

Let it be clear that Islam never allows anyone to use force to subjugate anyone else to the religion. Groups like Boko Haram, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, etc., are all wrong because they attack innocent people. They have no bearing on Islam and what they do is not Jihad, even though they claim it. They tarnish the name of Islam.

Muslims can only do Jihad when they are being threatened and killed because they are Muslims and for no other reason. The call for Jihad is given by the appointed Imam of the time. No person or group can collectively claim with a self-appointed leader that they can do Jihad. Only an Imam appointed directly by Allah can do so. They either have to be a Muhaddith, or a Khalifah. Anything else I say will simply be a digression, but this is the truth of the matter.
Have you looked into to the history of Islam? How do you think Muslims expanded from Makkah and Madina? Abu Bark (r) simultaneously attacked the Romans and the Persians until they were defeated. Umar bin Khattab was caliph for over 10 years and throughout his caliphate he was engaging in an offensive against many different lands. Throughout our history we engaged in an offensive countless times.
Reply

ardianto
08-16-2014, 03:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by 'Abd-al Latif
Have you looked into to the history of Islam? How do you think Muslims expanded from Makkah and Madina? Abu Bark (r) simultaneously attacked the Romans and the Persians until they were defeated. Umar bin Khattab was caliph for over 10 years and throughout his caliphate he was engaging in an offensive against many different lands. Throughout our history we engaged in an offensive countless times.
Muslims launched offensive war in the past which they attacked Romans and Persians. But bro, do you know how many lands which attacked by Romans and Persians in their offensive?.

Yes, Muslims launched offensive war in the past, but Muslims were not the only people who attacked other lands. Offensive war were something common in the past, even it still happened in 20th century. German launched offensive which caused WW2. Japanese launched offensive which caused Pacific war. China invaded Tibet.

But now after the world realized about the importance of live peacefully and made a deal to not launch offensive to other countries, Muslims countries made the same deal too.
Reply

'Abd-al Latif
08-16-2014, 10:50 PM
I'm not going to get into the details of these "peace" treaties because they're bogus deals. The point is that an offensive war recognised in islam. The Romans and Persians didn't want to attack Arabia because it's a desert land and it didn't offer any advantage to either by invading it. It was Abu Bakr (r) who initiated the offensive to both super powers at the same time and this war ended with victory during the reign of Umar (r).

Just because there is no official Muslim army under a caliph today doesn't mean an offensive war is now an unrecognised entity in Islam.
Reply

Ahmad H
08-17-2014, 03:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by 'Abd-al Latif
I'm not going to get into the details of these "peace" treaties because they're bogus deals. The point is that an offensive war recognised in islam. The Romans and Persians didn't want to attack Arabia because it's a desert land and it didn't offer any advantage to either by invading it. It was Abu Bakr (r) who initiated the offensive to both super powers at the same time and this war ended with victory during the reign of Umar (r).

Just because there is no official Muslim army under a caliph today doesn't mean an offensive war is now an unrecognised entity in Islam.
In the book titled, "Biographies of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs" by Ibn Kathir, it states:
"The basic aim of Muslim conquests was to spread the call to Islam to all nations in all lands, away from all forms of coercion, and to conquer tyrannical rulers who would adamantly stand in its way.
When reviewing Muslim conquests that took place between Muslims and other nations, whether at its outset, during its peak, or towards it end, we realize that they were all based on one and the same principle: calling on people to embrace Islam, or to enter into a peace agreement and lead a dignified life under the protection of Muslims. If they rejected both options, war would be the only choice left.
This is illustrated in the words of Khalif Ibn Al-Waleed to the ruler of Al-Hayrah when he said: "I call on you to worship Allah and embrace Islam. Should you accept our call, you become Muslims enjoying the same rights and shouldering the same responsibilities. Should you reject, you have to pay the Jizyah. Should you refuse to pay the Jizyah, you will have to face men who are keener on death than you are on life. We will fight you till Allah's word comes to pass between us." Similarly, Khalid always had his army leaders call on people to embrace Islam first before battling with them. This is best expressed in the message he sent to rulers of Persia which read: "In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful, from Khalid Ibn Al-Waleed to the ruler of Persia: embrace Islam in order to live in peace. If you do not, you will live under my protection in return for the Jizyah. Otherwise, you are up against people who love death just as much as you love wine.""
(pp. 97-98)

As far as the expansion of Islam from Mecca to Medina, this same book has it written:
"Though the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, spent thirteen years in Makkah calling unto its people to embrace Islam, and ten years in Madeenah calling unto Arabs in general, along with non-Arabs, to worship their Sole Creator, and fighting whoever tried to stand in his way, he constantly focused on the universality of Islam even in Muslims' darkest hours. For instance, when Khabbaab Ibn Al-Aratt, may Allah be pleased with him, spoke to him complaining about the severe torture Quraysh inflicted on them, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, answered: "I swear by Allah that He will see this call through until the day comes when a traveler would journey from San'aa' to Hadramawt fearing none but Allah and the wolf lest it should devour his sheep, but you are impatient."
Also, during the battle of the Trench, while Muslims were busy digging a trench round Madeenah, the Prophet pointed to his companions that the call to Islam is for the whole of mankind. He also foretold that the Muslim state will extend to include the lands of the Persians and the Romans. He, peace and blessings be upon him, said that the light that glimmered from the rock that he hit showed him palaces of Khosrau, the Romans and Basrah. He also said that Gabriel told him that his nation will have the upper hand over them.
Consequently, once the Prophet made peace with Quraysh, he bgan to send messengers outside the Arab Peninsula, calling Khosrau, Caesar, rulers of Basrah, Egypt and Abyssinia to worship Allah and embrace Islam. He warned them that if they turned down his call, they would thus be committing a huge sin as they would have prevented the call for the truth from reaching their nations.
Afterwards, he sent out a campaign to the outskirts of Syria where the battle of Mu'tah took place. Further, at the age of sixty, Prophet Muhammad went out to Tabook in order to practically show Muslims the way to call to Islam so long as rulers and kings stood in the way of messengers and would not let the words of truth find their way to the masses.
The Prophet was hence setting an example for all Muslims who were to shoulder the responsibility of spreading Islam all around the globe..."
(pp. 95-96)

The primary purpose of jihad by the sword was not for the spread of Islam, it was a last resort either way you look at it.
Reply

'Abd-al Latif
08-17-2014, 06:28 PM
You've proved my point. :thumbs_up
Reply

Karl
08-17-2014, 11:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Holly3278
Hey everyone. Can someone please clarify to me about Offensive Jihad? Is it true that Islam allows things like what Islamic State in Iraq is doing?
No, they are brigands. The Caliphate can only be brought about by the coming of the Mardi the Anointed one the divine Messiah. Those using violence and fear are servants of Satan and are really the worshippers of Mammon. A long time ago there was a group of crazy Muslims who had a citadel in central Asia and went around killing other Muslims that they didn't think were pious enough. Eventually an army of Mongolian Muslims sorted them out permanently. The Jews had problems with crazy zealots. And Christians had problems too with the wars between Protestants and Catholics. If "Islamic State" cannot tolerate others then others may not tolerate them.
P.S Even Al Qaeda have fallen out with them.
Reply

Ahmad H
08-19-2014, 03:07 PM
I did prove your point, because you were right. But you still do not acknowledge the fact that these wars, even if they seem like they are for the offensive, are not for that purpose. They were not meant to spread Islam, they were meant to remove the inhibitions to the spread of Islam. I think that's a very key point here.

This doesn't remove the defense aspect either. You have to look at the Holy Qur'an first:

2:190 Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
2:191 And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

22:39 To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid;-
22:40 (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, "our Lord is Allah". Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily Allah is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).

These are the reasons for Jihad. Since it was weak when only the Arabs had Islam, they needed to overcome the two superpowers at that time. If those powers inhibited them from spreading Islam, then this religion could not have spread to most of the world. It would have only remained in Arabia.

So please, read between the lines when looking at these texts. The main source of guidance is in the Holy Qur'an. It does not allow purely offensive Jihad, it allows it only in the guise of defensive Jihad. Even if Jihad may seem like it is Muslims fighting on the offense, it never is. Also, you can only consider the example of the Jihad of the first 4 Khalifas, the Khulafa-e-Rashidin.

The key thing to keep in mind is, "do not transgress" in Jihad. fighting peace-loving people who do not want to create war would be wrong. It's different with two huge empires who might view you as a threat. And yes, the Byzantines and the Persians would have potentially invaded Arabia if Islam grew too powerful. This is the way of kings, they enter other countries and they ruin them, making the highest of them the lowest. This is guidance given in the Holy Qur'an as well:

27:34 She said: "Kings, when they enter a country, despoil it, and make the noblest of its people its meanest thus do they behave.

In fact, this whole story of Hazrat Sulaiman (as) is an example of why this type of Jihad occurred. Read it carefully and consider the facts. It is very similar to the situation of the Muslims when the Holy Prophet (saw) was alive. After all, the Qur'an pointed out many prophecies and many examples of things which the Muslims needed to do.
Reply

greenhill
08-19-2014, 03:33 PM
Hmmm

:exhausted

If he first step of jihad is within oneself, and that is a continuous journey, and the outward jihad is the mannerism in which we portray our deen to the world outside. Again, that should be a daily jihad. Not to lose temper, to be forgiving, charitable, punctual, honest, do His bidding, etc and if the situation warrants it, participate in the jihad that will require you to leave your creature comforts of home.

Offensive jihad? Don't understand it. Paradox, almost..

:shade:
Reply

Scimitar
08-19-2014, 03:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by 'Abd-al Latif
You've proved my point. :thumbs_up

Assalaam alaikum,

It did seem that way didn't it? But read between the lines. Yes, Muslims campaigned in other territories, but only after a proper method of introduction and intention was relayed to the Kings of those countries.

By their very acts of refusal to entertain the idea of Islam, with such acts as tearing up the letters sent by the prophet pbuh, they had in effect - spoken of their ill will against Islam and therefore eyed it with suspicion - refusing to even let trade commence with the Muslims. This is tyranny - and in Islam brother, we do not tolerate it - it must be removed so the people can get the truth.

The act of tearing a peaceful invitation to something, is an act of war itself - because the act itself (of tearing up the document) is advocating the Kings hatred for anything not of his own vision - that my brother, is a sign of a tyrant.

Even so, knowing this - the Muslims, were very careful to not be the "starters of wars" in these times. And this is well documented also, so though it may appear that we engaged in "offensive jihad" the reality is, we did not. We instead, afforded every option to the non believing nations Kings to 1) accept Islam 2) let the Muslims preach in their land 3) trade with them...

...when all three were refused, and armies were being gathered on their behalf, the Muslims had no choice but to also prepare.

War, is not a simple thing by any standard, not black and white.

then, there are the stark examples being brought to light in the modern age - which tell of a non violent approach to how Islam spread in the northern territories, for example:

Syrian archaeological dig reveals myth of Islam spreading by the sword


by Mike Addelman
Source: The University of Manchester





An archaeologist working in Syria has solved the mystery of why one of Islam’s earliest fortresses dropped out of the historical record around 1,100 years ago.


Senior Lecturer Dr Emma Loosley from The University of Manchester was one of an international team of experts invited into the world-renowned Khanuqa Gap by the Syrian Department of Antiquities before its secrets – and 11,000 years of human history – may be lost to a controversial dam project.


Dr Loosley, who has been unable to return to Syria because of the current conflict, found that 1,100 years ago a fire raged through what was regarded as an impregnable fortress.


Her work has also helped show that, contrary to popular understanding, the earliest Muslim expansion across the Middle East was largely peaceful and typified by coexistence with Christians.


Like Jerusalem’s Dome of the Rock, the citadel – called Zalabiyeh – was one of the first buildings to be inhabited by Muslims as they spread across the Syrian desert.


It was constructed during the Byzantine Empire before being renovated under the Umayyad Dynasty during Islam’s first period of expansion from Mecca in the early seventh century.


The first of four Arab caliphates following the death of Muhammed, the Umayyad dynasty left Mecca to establish one of the largest empires the world had yet seen.


Zalabiyeh, its sister citadel Halabiyeh and dozens of other crucially important sites may be flooded as part of a major HEP project.


Dr Loosley’s undergraduate student Joshua Bryant, who worked with her, was able to date the citadel to c.500 AD by analysing the way its walls were constructed.


He received a University award for his dissertation which he hopes to publish in a journal – a rare feat for an undergraduate.


Dr Loosley excavated burned beams and roof tiles – alongside other finds -including a fully functioning barracks, a human tooth, copper belt buckle, plaster spinning wheel, fragments of an alabaster mirror, and painted wall plaster.


She also found some ovens still crammed with charred chicken bones and ash.


The evidence points to a fire which forced the soldiers to leave but also a peaceful takeover of the previously Byzantine controlled citadel by Umayyad soldiers.


The artefacts are in Syria awaiting further analysis by Dr Loosley once – or if – she is able to return.


She said: “There is little evidence of any violence in the years before the citadel burned down, but there is intriguingly so much more to learn.


“We don’t even know if the soldiers who took over control from the Byzantines were Muslims or Christians even though they were subjects of the Umayadd caliph.


“Coexistence typified those times: some even argue that one reason why so many Christians converted to Islam is because the major sources of tension and conflict were between Christian factions themselves."



She added: “The Khanuqa Gap is a major crossing point on the River Euphrates and so has been politically, economically and socially important to human beings for 11,000 years.


“It contains evidence of continuous human settlement through many civilisations including Assyrian, Roman, Arab – an astonishing area to work in and one of the most important in the world.


“So our work to understand as much as we can before it disappears is hugely important and I hope to be able go back as soon as it is safe to do so.”


The work was funded by the British Academy and the Osmane Aidi foundation.


A version of Dr Loosley’s book, Christian Responses to Islam and Muslim-Christian Relations in the Modern World, edited with Anthony O’Mahony is published by Manchester University Press in January 2012.

...

Further, De Lacy O'Leary in the book, "Islam at the cross road" (page8) states that "History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated"

To see it repeated here by Muslims is somewhat confusing for me.

Scimi
Reply

Jedi_Mindset
08-20-2014, 03:57 PM
IS is serving the enemies of islam way more than it is serving islam. Since when it is allowed to behead journalists even when these journalists come from your enemy country?
This caliphate is bogus, it does harm us more than it does good. A caliphate and its army should be good for muslims, but right now they're just putting us in danger as this action will cause blowback.

Was this man complicit with crimes against muslims? Did this man fought alongside the US army? Did this man even harm muslims?

To add more, we can't forget the US crimes in Iraq, but does that justify this? No.

If there is one IS supporter here, can he give me one fatwa or one reason how this is allowed? I bet i won't recieve a answer, because this isnt and there isnt even one example from history prophet muhammed(SAW) nor the salaf did such acts.
Reply

Ahmad H
08-20-2014, 04:45 PM
I don't think I responded to the last part of your question, Holly.

No, Islam does not allow what is happening in Iraq. ISIS is a terrorist group and they are not Islamic in the least. They have been killing innocent Muslims, innocent non-Muslims, beheading journalists, overthrowing governments with violence, instituting a false khalifa, etc. They are not a Muslim group in the least bit. I hate to ever label those who call themselves Muslim as being non-Muslim in general, so I can safely say that ISIS's actions are all un-Islamic, to say the least.

If you kill a person, it is as if you killed all of mankind. With non-believers, even if we were ever at war with anyone, we have to be peaceful in our approach. We accept any treaties they propose, we never transgress in the matters of war and we never kill innocent lives that have nothing to do with the war itself. ISIS has breached all of these sacred rules and they are causing bloodshed in the land for no reason other than their own glory.

As for their claiming that their actions are for the sake of Islam, it is bogus. They could claim they are fighting for the sake of a bottle of ketchup for all I care. They have no claim on anything. A group of violent men like these do not deserve a peaceful night of sleep. If the US bombs them, then it would be wrong to feel remorse for them. They have slain many innocent Muslims, and so that makes them anti-Islamic. Anyone who supports them or are part of them are part of the same crime.

According to Islamic law, the punishment for killing a Muslim is death or paying blood-money. Since this group doesn't give a whit for the people they killed, they only deserve death considering their actions. They are a menace and their Caliph should above all be slain too. He is instigating this. Worse, he is a liar who claims he is from God. So by definition he is also a Dajjal (Anti-Christ).

In Islam, the Dajjal would come from a road between Syria and Iraq, and would spread mischief right and left. He would reward those who follow him and leave the ones who reject him in drought and suffering with nothing in the form of wealth. These are the signs I see in this Caliph and in his cronies. This Caliph is not "the Dajjal", but he is a manifestation of this menace.

I hope you see why according to Islam, ISIS is an evil group. They are anti-Islamic. The sign of the lie in this Caliph is that Muslims are not rushing to join him. The Mahdi would be the first one to re-institute Khilafat in the Final Age of mankind. This man is not a Mahdi by any means. His assassination might be the best thing for Muslims, if anything.
Reply

Jedi_Mindset
08-20-2014, 05:03 PM
Though he never claimed to be a prophet or come from Allah, the tribe where he comes from are far descendants of Hussain(Ra). So that made a caliph and from qurayshi lineage. BUT this is the deception where the muslims will fall in.

Extremism has destroyed religions and people in the past, and it has destroyed islam as well.
Reply

ardianto
08-20-2014, 05:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
If there is one IS supporter here, can he give me one fatwa or one reason how this is allowed? I bet i won't recieve a answer, because this isnt and there isnt even one example from history prophet muhammed(SAW) nor the salaf did such acts.
They can give you a bunch of daleel from Qur'an, hadith, and salaf stories. But the question is, are their daleel relevant or not?.

They even use surah Al-Mumtahanah ayah 4 to prove that their caliph mentioned in the Qur'an. Read that ayah, and you will find a name that mentioned there which they claim as name of their caliph. This is what I found from their supporters site.
Reply

Pygoscelis
08-20-2014, 08:12 PM
Good thread. With ISIS ramping up and becoming more and more in the spotlight, and especially with the recent posted beheading of the American journalist Foley, now is the time for sane Muslims to shield against the inevitable linking in peoples minds between Islam and barbarism. It is nice to see so many good muslims doing so. ISIS is not Islam any more than Joseph Kony and the Lord's Resistance Army are Christianity.

This very forum, with its domain name, no doubt draws a lot of curious westerners to read it (if not post on it), and you have a golden opportunity with threads like this one to remind westerners that Islam doesn't equal terrorism, like Fox news would have them believe.

It is also an opportunity to present reasonable views on conflicts such as Israel/Palestine without the western media distorting things in favour of Israel.
Reply

Pygoscelis
08-20-2014, 08:42 PM
For some reason the board won't let me edit my post above. I press edit and it just locks up endlessly trying to load the page.

I was going to edit what I said because I stupidly wrote it before I read the posts above. I assumed you would all be differentiating Islam from ISIS.... and instead I see posts say that Islam decrees that:

1. You accept and convert yourself, and your people to Islam; or

2. You pay us money (with the assumption you can afford it, if not go to 3?); or

3. We will invade and kill you.

And somehow you are trying to tell us that this defensive and not offensive?

It is the logic of the conqueror. It is clearly aggressive. It is the way ancient Rome operated. It is how biker gangs operate. Swear loyalty, pay protection, or we kill you. This doesn't show Islam being oppressed. It shows Islam demanding superiority and seeking to oppress others. And if this is what Muslims stand for, then we non-muslims have every reason to fight against Islam.

Please tell me I'm reading this wrong. I really want to be able to peacefully co-exist with Islam.
Reply

سيف الله
08-20-2014, 09:10 PM
Salaam

format_quote Originally Posted by ardianto

But now after the world realized about the importance of live peacefully and made a deal to not launch offensive to other countries, Muslims countries made the same deal too.
I have to disagree with this statement brother, powerful nations disregard the notion of peace whenever it suits them. Lets take the USA post world war 2. It has a long and rather sordid history of subverting, invading, overthrowing governments who they don't approve of, while imposing their economic system, culture, whether the population wants it or not.

Just look at the misery and death they have brought to Iraq over the decades. (Supporting Saddam, Gulf war 1, Sanctions which destroyed the Iraq economy/society, Gulf War 2, economy/society destroyed again and now were heading towards Gulf War 3).

Getting back on topic I agree that IS behaviour is appalling and are tarnishing the name Islam.
Reply

ardianto
08-20-2014, 10:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
For some reason the board won't let me edit my post above. I press edit and it just locks up endlessly trying to load the page.

I was going to edit what I said because I stupidly wrote it before I read the posts above. I assumed you would all be differentiating Islam from ISIS.... and instead I see posts say that Islam decrees that:

1. You accept and convert yourself, and your people to Islam; or

2. You pay us money (with the assumption you can afford it, if not go to 3?); or

3. We will invade and kill you.

And somehow you are trying to tell us that this defensive and not offensive?

It is the logic of the conqueror. It is clearly aggressive. It is the way ancient Rome operated. It is how biker gangs operate. Swear loyalty, pay protection, or we kill you. This doesn't show Islam being oppressed. It shows Islam demanding superiority and seeking to oppress others. And if this is what Muslims stand for, then we non-muslims have every reason to fight against Islam.

Please tell me I'm reading this wrong. I really want to be able to peacefully co-exist with Islam.
You are not reading that wrong, but you read from article that written by those who interpret surah At-Taubah: 29 too strict.

If you were living under Islamic state (I repeat, IF you lived under Islamic state) that implement sharia, then you ......

1) Can choose to accept Islam or still in your own believe. If you choose to not become Muslim, then you .....

2) Pay Jizya, or tax for non-Muslim. Yes, you have to pay jizya because you don't have to pay zakat like Muslims. Jizya is only for non-Muslim male who afford. And the compensation of pay jizya are, you can use the state facilities, you are free from conscription, unlike Muslims. (Do you want to fight for Islamic state?. I am sure, you don't). And unlike zakat, there's no minimum amount of jizya. It could be zero.

3) If you lived in Islamic state, of course you must recognize the Muslim government as legitimate government. Just like you must recognized your Canadian government as legitimate government of Canada.

Not every Muslim has strict interpretation of Islam. ISIS indeed, intrepret Islam too strict which criticized by many other Muslims. And just for info, ISIS declare war to Muslims who do not pledge allegiance to their 'caliph'.
Reply

Genesis
08-21-2014, 04:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Holly3278
Hey everyone. Can someone please clarify to me about Offensive Jihad? Is it true that Islam allows things like what Islamic State in Iraq is doing?
Ive often heard from Muslims that military jihad and military action should only ever be for defensive purposes but verse in the Quran verse 9.29 implies an aggressive action - not defensive-"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Also Muslim tradition holds that Mohammad sent threatening letters to other rulers in the region to submit to Islam or "face the consequences".

Further more the early caliphates were expansionist and spread by the sword.

So I think groups like Isis base their ideas on genuine Muslim doctrine.
Reply

Genesis
08-21-2014, 04:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ardianto
Muslims launched offensive war in the past which they attacked Romans and Persians. But bro, do you know how many lands which attacked by Romans and Persians in their offensive?.

Yes, Muslims launched offensive war in the past, but Muslims were not the only people who attacked other lands. Offensive war were something common in the past, even it still happened in 20th century. German launched offensive which caused WW2. Japanese launched offensive which caused Pacific war. China invaded Tibet.

But now after the world realized about the importance of live peacefully and made a deal to not launch offensive to other countries, Muslims countries made the same deal too.
Hello Arddianto
I think you are avoiding the subject here. We are not talking about secular governments but Islam that holds itself to be a higher moral authority.
Reply

Genesis
08-21-2014, 04:42 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmad H
I did prove your point, because you were right. But you still do not acknowledge the fact that these wars, even if they seem like they are for the offensive, are not for that purpose. They were not meant to spread Islam, they were meant to remove the inhibitions to the spread of Islam. I think that's a very key point here.

This doesn't remove the defense aspect either. You have to look at the Holy Qur'an first:

2:190 Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
2:191 And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

22:39 To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid;-
22:40 (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, "our Lord is Allah". Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily Allah is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).

These are the reasons for Jihad. Since it was weak when only the Arabs had Islam, they needed to overcome the two superpowers at that time. If those powers inhibited them from spreading Islam, then this religion could not have spread to most of the world. It would have only remained in Arabia.

So please, read between the lines when looking at these texts. The main source of guidance is in the Holy Qur'an. It does not allow purely offensive Jihad, it allows it only in the guise of defensive Jihad. Even if Jihad may seem like it is Muslims fighting on the offense, it never is. Also, you can only consider the example of the Jihad of the first 4 Khalifas, the Khulafa-e-Rashidin.

The key thing to keep in mind is, "do not transgress" in Jihad. fighting peace-loving people who do not want to create war would be wrong. It's different with two huge empires who might view you as a threat. And yes, the Byzantines and the Persians would have potentially invaded Arabia if Islam grew too powerful. This is the way of kings, they enter other countries and they ruin them, making the highest of them the lowest. This is guidance given in the Holy Qur'an as well:

27:34 She said: "Kings, when they enter a country, despoil it, and make the noblest of its people its meanest thus do they behave.

In fact, this whole story of Hazrat Sulaiman (as) is an example of why this type of Jihad occurred. Read it carefully and consider the facts. It is very similar to the situation of the Muslims when the Holy Prophet (saw) was alive. After all, the Qur'an pointed out many prophecies and many examples of things which the Muslims needed to do.
Hello Ahmad
You are admitting the reason for the aggression of the early Caliphates was to spread Islam! But you then go on to quote verses in the Quran about defence. Verse 9.29 is not defensive though. It is offensive - aggressive. You say the Byzantines and Persians may have potentially invaded the Muslim lands. But it was Mohammad that wrote them threatening letters in the first place. And we don't know if they would have invaded them or not because the Muslims invaded them. This is ISIS type behaviour.
Reply

ardianto
08-21-2014, 04:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
Ive often heard from Muslims that military jihad and military action should only ever be for defensive purposes but verse in the Quran verse 9.29 implies an aggressive action - not defensive-"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Also Muslim tradition holds that Mohammad sent threatening letters to other rulers in the region to submit to Islam or "face the consequences".

Further more the early caliphates were expansionist and spread by the sword.

So I think groups like Isis base their ideas on genuine Muslim doctrine.
There are "asbabun nuzul" (cause of revelation) behind Qur'an verses, which one verse refer to the specific event in that time.

And surah At-Taubah: 29 actually is refer to the war between Muslims and Rum (Byzantine) empire that happened in that time. It cannot be used as justification to always fight non-Muslim anytime, anywhere. Although unfortunately there are Muslims who use this verse as justification for their offensive jihad.
Reply

Genesis
08-21-2014, 05:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ardianto
There are "asbabun nuzul" (cause of revelation) behind Qur'an verses, which one verse refer to the specific event in that time.

And surah At-Taubah: 29 actually is refer to the war between Muslims and Rum (Byzantine) empire that happened in that time. It cannot be used as justification to always fight non-Muslim anytime, anywhere. Although unfortunately there are Muslims who use this verse as justification for their offensive jihad.
Im confused. I thought the Quran was absolute and perfect for all time and all people. But now you are saying these verses were only for that time and those people in those situations?
Reply

Genesis
08-21-2014, 05:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ardianto
There are "asbabun nuzul" (cause of revelation) behind Qur'an verses, which one verse refer to the specific event in that time.

And surah At-Taubah: 29 actually is refer to the war between Muslims and Rum (Byzantine) empire that happened in that time.
also wasn't this an example of the Muslim armies attacking the Byzantines? If so this would not have been a defensive action?
Reply

Ahmad H
08-21-2014, 05:49 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
Hello Ahmad
You are admitting the reason for the aggression of the early Caliphates was to spread Islam! But you then go on to quote verses in the Quran about defence. Verse 9.29 is not defensive though. It is offensive - aggressive. You say the Byzantines and Persians may have potentially invaded the Muslim lands. But it was Mohammad that wrote them threatening letters in the first place. And we don't know if they would have invaded them or not because the Muslims invaded them. This is ISIS type behaviour.
Greetings Genesis,

You misunderstood my statement. Yes, sometimes Muslims took the first strike against their enemies, which can be considered offensive. But, these are meant for defensive purposes against an enemy that is already ready to attack you at anytime. The expedition of Tabuk was against the Romans as well, which was due to an actual threat from them.

I quoted the verses above because they were given about the permission for Jihad to the Muslims. The permission was only for Muslims to retaliate to threats which posed as a danger to the existence of Muslims, not to be aggressive and attack upon peaceful co-existing people. Muslims are not allowed to transgress anyone either.

ISIS are aggressors who kill innocent people, they murder to send messages and they starve people and put them in misery. This is not what Islam teaches.

As for quoting verse 9:29, I suggest you read the Tafsirs. They offer an explanation on these verses.

As for the statements of the Holy Qur'an, some being for the time period they were revealed in, and others being lasting, this is meant to illustrate God's guidance in all times. Some verses refer only to the future, but this does not mean the Qur'an is not for our time. It varies on when and how verses apply. If a verse is only about the past then it does not mean that such a verse disproves the Qur'an's being a Book of guidance for all time. All verses are applicable in their own way.
Reply

Genesis
08-21-2014, 07:15 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmad H
Greetings Genesis,

You misunderstood my statement. Yes, sometimes Muslims took the first strike against their enemies, which can be considered offensive. But, these are meant for defensive purposes against an enemy that is already ready to attack you at anytime. The expedition of Tabuk was against the Romans as well, which was due to an actual threat from them.

I quoted the verses above because they were given about the permission for Jihad to the Muslims. The permission was only for Muslims to retaliate to threats which posed as a danger to the existence of Muslims, not to be aggressive and attack upon peaceful co-existing people. Muslims are not allowed to transgress anyone either.

ISIS are aggressors who kill innocent people, they murder to send messages and they starve people and put them in misery. This is not what Islam teaches.

As for quoting verse 9:29, I suggest you read the Tafsirs. They offer an explanation on these verses.

As for the statements of the Holy Qur'an, some being for the time period they were revealed in, and others being lasting, this is meant to illustrate God's guidance in all times. Some verses refer only to the future, but this does not mean the Qur'an is not for our time. It varies on when and how verses apply. If a verse is only about the past then it does not mean that such a verse disproves the Qur'an's being a Book of guidance for all time. All verses are applicable in their own way.
This is quite abit of a move from the usual Islamic position that militant verses in the Quran are defensive. Now we have its ok to attack first - in case you are attacked. The definition of defence is starting to become unclear. And I think it is because of this lack of clarity that groups like Al Queda and ISIS exist.
In regards to the Quaran being for that time period - why the need for a tafsir or commentary. I think 9.29 is very straight forward. I still don't see how if the Quaran is the absolute universal message for all time then its verses could only be for a time and people in the past?
Reply

OmAbdullah
08-21-2014, 10:59 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmad H
Jihad is only allowed for defensive purposes. Islam was never spread by the sword. When Muslims took up the sword, it was because they were being persecuted and because the disbelievers were a threat to the existence of Islam at the time. The command for Jihad by the sword was given after Muslim suffered for 13 years of Meccan oppression.

Let it be clear that Islam never allows anyone to use force to subjugate anyone else to the religion. Groups like Boko Haram, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, etc., are all wrong because they attack innocent people. They have no bearing on Islam and what they do is not Jihad, even though they claim it. They tarnish the name of Islam.

Muslims can only do Jihad when they are being threatened and killed because they are Muslims and for no other reason. The call for Jihad is given by the appointed Imam of the time. No person or group can collectively claim with a self-appointed leader that they can do Jihad. Only an Imam appointed directly by Allah can do so. They either have to be a Muhaddith, or a Khalifah. Anything else I say will simply be a digression, but this is the truth of the matter.
What do you mean by the statement in bold? What is the proof of this statement from the Holy Quraan and /or the Sunnah of the FINAL Prophet Muhammad (salla Allahu alaihi wa sallam)? The fact is that this statement has no basis in Islam and this statement (in bold above ) is a newly invented false statement.
Reply

OmAbdullah
08-21-2014, 11:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Holly3278
Hey everyone. Can someone please clarify to me about Offensive Jihad? Is it true that Islam allows things like what Islamic State in Iraq is doing?
We cannot say anything about ISIS because we don't know what is actually happening there. This is because the media is not giving true news.
Reply

Jedi_Mindset
08-21-2014, 01:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by nbegam
We cannot say anything about ISIS because we don't know what is actually happening there. This is because the media is not giving true news.
True, there are alot of lies about IS already disproven. But that doesnt change the fact that they kill muslims without proof or any rulling which allows them to do so. IS doesn't prefer peace, because they are specifically following their agenda by conquering more territories. Which means more wars, and no treaties.

IS are tyrants though we've had worse in the past. The killing of American journalists is still barbaric and doesn't justify US crimes in iraq, and i know pretty well how iraqis are suffering and have suffered under US/rawafidh dominance.
Reply

ardianto
08-22-2014, 10:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
Im confused. I thought the Quran was absolute and perfect for all time and all people. But now you are saying these verses were only for that time and those people in those situations?
Law maybe changed if it's not relevant anymore with the current situation. But Qur'an and Hadith are sources of law, not the law itself. They become sources for Islamic Law (Sharia) and Islamic guidance of how to do (Fiqh). As sources of law, Quran and Hadith don't need to be changed because still and always relevant until the end of the world.

format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
also wasn't this an example of the Muslim armies attacking the Byzantines? If so this would not have been a defensive action?
Conflict already happened when that verse revealed which both parties attacked each other.
Reply

Ahmad H
08-22-2014, 03:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by nbegam
What do you mean by the statement in bold? What is the proof of this statement from the Holy Quraan and /or the Sunnah of the FINAL Prophet Muhammad (salla Allahu alaihi wa sallam)? The fact is that this statement has no basis in Islam and this statement (in bold above ) is a newly invented false statement.
How am I wrong? Did not the Imams in the past decide when Muslims should do Jihad? The Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) commanded the Muslims to fight, then it was Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra), then it was Hazrat Umar (ra), then it was Hazrat Uthman (ra), then it was Hazrat Ali (ra), etc. After them, if anyone were to do Jihad, do you think groups should form, or it would have to be the Khulafa who are heads of the Muslims states?

These were all Imams. Imam is a term designated for a "leader" in Islam. Just what is so wrong about Imams anyway? All of them were appointed by Allah. Read:

24:55 Allah has promised, to those among you who believe and work righteous deeds, that He will, of a surety, grant them in the land, inheritance (of power), as He granted it to those before them; that He will establish in authority their religion - the one which He has chosen for them; and that He will change (their state), after the fear in which they (lived), to one of security and peace: 'They will worship Me (alone) and not associate aught with Me. 'If any do reject Faith after this, they are rebellious and wicked.

Nothing I said in bold is besides the point in this verse of the Holy Qur'an.
Reply

Ahmad H
08-22-2014, 03:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
This is quite abit of a move from the usual Islamic position that militant verses in the Quran are defensive. Now we have its ok to attack first - in case you are attacked. The definition of defence is starting to become unclear. And I think it is because of this lack of clarity that groups like Al Queda and ISIS exist.
How are Al-Qaeda and ISIS fighting for self-defense for Islam? Either prove they claimed this or remove this thought altogether. You don't need to be an expert to see that they are just killing people randomly and target both Muslims and non-Muslims. This is not Jihad.

format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
In regards to the Quaran being for that time period - why the need for a tafsir or commentary. I think 9.29 is very straight forward.
To show you just how flawed this logic is. Consider a random historical text from 1000 years ago. If there was one line about war in that book, and you read it and said it is very clear to you, despite the comments of a historian explaining the true intent behind the line in that book, then you would disregard that expert opinion and say you know just as well as the historian? It is intellectual dishonesty.

I hope this example made it clear that you have to read a commentary about a text which is from the other wide of the world, in a different time and in a very different era of geopolitical affairs. You DEFINITELY need a commentary on such a text.

format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
I still don't see how if the Quaran is the absolute universal message for all time then its verses could only be for a time and people in the past?
Only some verses are about the past. Even then, those verses are meant to demonstrate lessons for the people of the future. They are examples and lessons meant to teach the religion. So even if these verses are not regarding the future state of the world, and merely describe the past, they are not meaningless to the universal message of Islam.

The verses about Jihad, for example, are meant to demonstrate what occurred in the battles of the Muslims of the past, so that Muslims learn from what happened in that time. The Qur'an is a book which is meant to be reflected on often through recitation. Jihad is a command which requires conditions for it to occur. So it is always possible that in the future Muslims would be required to do it.
Reply

Jedi_Mindset
08-22-2014, 08:05 PM
While crimes of IS are all over the news, this news often passes the media and crimes like this have directly given rise to IS among iraqi sunnis, the ethnic cleansing of sunnis in iraq has been happening since 2003 with US approval.



I have never anyone seen talking about this, another persecution of muslims never heard of by many.
Reply

syed_z
08-24-2014, 07:01 AM
Asalaam O Alaikum to all...would like to share a few points on the offensive Jihad topic here....this is what I have come to learn from various Islamic sources especially Muhammad Asad's Message of the Quran, a contemporary commentary of the Quran...

format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
This is quite abit of a move from the usual Islamic position that militant verses in the Quran are defensive. Now we have its ok to attack first - in case you are attacked. The definition of defence is starting to become unclear. And I think it is because of this lack of clarity that groups like Al Queda and ISIS exist.
In regards to the Quaran being for that time period - why the need for a tafsir or commentary. I think 9.29 is very straight forward. I still don't see how if the Quaran is the absolute universal message for all time then its verses could only be for a time and people in the past?
@ Genesis,

We cannot approach the Quran with haste as the Quran itself says in Chapter 20 Verse 114:

"(Know), then, (that) God is sublimely Exalted, the Ultimate Sovereign, the Ultimate Truth: and (knowing this,) do not approach the Quran in haste, before it has been revealed unto you in full...."


Since Quran is the word of God therefore all its Verses form one integral whole, hence one who is really intent to understand Quran should be aware of hasty approach by taking Verses, like Surah Taubah 9:29 and studying them in isolation.


The Verse of Surah Taubah 9:29 deals with the subject of Jihad (armed struggle) which is part of other Verses in the Quran on the same subject. Therefore this Verse should be understood in the light of all other Verses on Jihad.


The following is the earliest Quranic reference which gave Muslims to fight physically in Self-Defence, it was revealed right after Prophet (saw) migrated from Makkah to Madinah, the Makkans were going to wage war against Muslims:

(22:39) PERMISSION (to fight) is given to those against whom war is being waged - and, verily, God has indeed the power to help them (40) those who have been driven from their homelands against all right for no other reason than their saying, "Our Sustainer is God!" For if God had not enabled people to defend themselves against one another, (all) monasteries and churches and synagogues and mosques - in (all of) which God's name is abundantly extolled - would surely have been destroyed.


So if ISIS attacks Christians in Arabia to kill them, or Zionist Judeo Christian alliance wages a war against Orthodox Russian Christians in Ukraine or against Muslims of Palestine and Afghanistan then the oppressed have the right to fight back.

The following Verses of Al Baqarah (2:190-194) elaborating the Principle of War in Self Defence were revealed a year after:

AND FIGHT in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression - for verily, God does not love aggressors....


This and the following Verses lay down unequivocally the that only Self Defense (in the widest sense of the word) makes war permissible for Muslims. The defensive character of a fight in God's cause is moreover self evident in the reference to "those who wage war against you." and has been still further clarified in 22:39 "Permission (to fight) is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged."

These earliest fundamental principles of self defence as the only possible justification of war has been maintained throughout the Quran is evident from the following Verses 60:08:

As for such (of the unbelievers) as do not fight against you on account of (your) faith and neither drive you out of your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to behave towards them with full equity: for verily God loves those who act equitably.

Based on the Verse 60:08 nullifies the interpretation of Jihad being waged by ISIS.....they would surely be answerable on the Day of Judgment for what they are doing.

And based on this Verse it clearly and explicitly indicates to the Muslims that they are not supposed to wage offensive Jihad that is give three ultimatum to the entire Non Muslim World:
1. Submit
2. Pay Jizyah
3. Or the Sword

The Khulafa Rashidun fought wars based on this principle of Self Defense, they acted before the Persians and the Byzantines were gearing up to eliminate them, for this all I can tell you is to read History of the Caliphs to understand.

@ My Muslim Brothers here the Quran clearly forbids Use of Force or compulsion for the propagation of Islam - "Let him who will believe and let him who will disbelieve." (Quran 2:256, 18:29). The Sahaba knew the Quran better than us, they never waged offensive wars because they knew that converting Non Muslims through fight is against the Spirit of Islam. It was only to repel aggression as a result of which the Persians and the Byzantine empires fell.
Reply

Genesis
08-24-2014, 11:09 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ardianto
Law maybe changed if it's not relevant anymore with the current situation. But Qur'an and Hadith are sources of law, not the law itself. They become sources for Islamic Law (Sharia) and Islamic guidance of how to do (Fiqh). As sources of law, Quran and Hadith don't need to be changed because still and always relevant until the end of the world.


Conflict already happened when that verse revealed which both parties attacked each other.
How can you say the Quran is not law itself. I thought the Quran is on tablets in heaven and recited from God through Gabriel and Mohammad ? These verses state from Allah that the Quran is literal, clear, perfect, fully explained, firm, and explaining all things. Quran 6.14, 11.1, 12.1, 16.89, 27.1, 41.3, 57.9.

You say that the situation was important and that the conflict already happened when that verse revealed which both parties attacked each other. Do you mean the historical and cultural context at that time?
regarding the Quran verse 9.29. Lets look at the historical context to it then. According to the esteemed Muslim scholar
Ibn Kathir's in The Battles of the Prophet p. 183-4.

Allah, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. The Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah. Allah says,Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Surah 9. 29)
Mohamad decided to fight the Romans in order to call them to Islam.

There is nothing here about any Romans attacking the Muslims. This was about Muhammad stopping non-Muslims from taking religious pilgrimages to Mecca. The Quraish (now Muslims) were worried that this would interfere with their profits and Muhammad received a revelation, saying, "If you're worried about money, don't worry, because God's going to enrich you by sending you to fight the People of the Book, until they convert to Islam or pay the Jizya!"

So If the Roman Empire had converted to Islam, Mecca would have tons of pilgrims visiting the Ka'ba. If the Romans decided to pay the Jizya instead, Muslims would still be making lots of money. It seems, then, that the motive for Allah's command in Surah 9:29 was simply to fight people until they started sending money to the Muslims.

Also remember Mohammad had written threatening letters to foreign Kings. There is nothing defensive about any of this.

Reply

Genesis
08-24-2014, 11:19 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmad H
How are Al-Qaeda and ISIS fighting for self-defense for Islam? Either prove they claimed this or remove this thought altogether. You don't need to be an expert to see that they are just killing people randomly and target both Muslims and non-Muslims. This is not Jihad.



To show you just how flawed this logic is. Consider a random historical text from 1000 years ago. If there was one line about war in that book, and you read it and said it is very clear to you, despite the comments of a historian explaining the true intent behind the line in that book, then you would disregard that expert opinion and say you know just as well as the historian? It is intellectual dishonesty.

I hope this example made it clear that you have to read a commentary about a text which is from the other wide of the world, in a different time and in a very different era of geopolitical affairs. You DEFINITELY need a commentary on such a text.



Only some verses are about the past. Even then, those verses are meant to demonstrate lessons for the people of the future. They are examples and lessons meant to teach the religion. So even if these verses are not regarding the future state of the world, and merely describe the past, they are not meaningless to the universal message of Islam.

The verses about Jihad, for example, are meant to demonstrate what occurred in the battles of the Muslims of the past, so that Muslims learn from what happened in that time. The Qur'an is a book which is meant to be reflected on often through recitation. Jihad is a command which requires conditions for it to occur. So it is always possible that in the future Muslims would be required to do it.
You askHow are Al-Qaeda and ISIS fighting for self-defense for Islam? I don’t know- you tell me. Have Muslims always fought for self defense. I don’t believe so. Probably they are getting their ideas from the Quran or hadith.

You talk about the verse being in context to the past. Ok. Here is some historical context to Quaran verse 9.29. This is from Ibn Kathir in The Battles of the Prophet p. 183-4.
“Allah, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. The Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah. Allah says Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Surah 9. 29).

There is nothing here about any Romans attacking the Muslims. This was about Muhammad stopping non-Muslims from taking religious pilgrimages to Mecca. The Quraish (now Muslims) were worried that this would interfere with their profits and Muhammad received a revelation, saying, "If you're worried about money, don't worry, because God's going to enrich you by sending you to fight the People of the Book, until they convert to Islam or pay the Jizya!"

So If the Roman Empire had converted to Islam, Mecca would have lots of pilgrims visiting the Ka'ba. If the Romans elected to pay the Jizya instead, Muslims would still be taking in lots of money. It seems, then, that the motive for Allah's command in Surah 9:29 was simply to fight people until they started sending money to the Muslims. Also remember Mohammad had written threatening letters to foreign Kings. There is nothing defensive about any of this.

You said “the verses about Jihad, for example, are meant to demonstrate what occurred in the battles of the Muslims of the past” I thought the Quran is on tablets in heaven and recited in Arabic from God through Gabriel and Mohammad ? These verses state from Allah that the Quran is literal, clear, perfect, fully explained, firm, and explaining all things. Quran 6.14, 11.1, 12.1, 16.89, 27.1, 41.3, 57.9.


Reply

Genesis
08-24-2014, 11:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by syed_z
Asalaam O Alaikum to all...would like to share a few points on the offensive Jihad topic here....this is what I have come to learn from various Islamic sources especially Muhammad Asad's Message of the Quran, a contemporary commentary of the Quran...



@ Genesis,

We cannot approach the Quran with haste as the Quran itself says in Chapter 20 Verse 114:

"(Know), then, (that) God is sublimely Exalted, the Ultimate Sovereign, the Ultimate Truth: and (knowing this,) do not approach the Quran in haste, before it has been revealed unto you in full...."


Since Quran is the word of God therefore all its Verses form one integral whole, hence one who is really intent to understand Quran should be aware of hasty approach by taking Verses, like Surah Taubah 9:29 and studying them in isolation.


The Verse of Surah Taubah 9:29 deals with the subject of Jihad (armed struggle) which is part of other Verses in the Quran on the same subject. Therefore this Verse should be understood in the light of all other Verses on Jihad.


The following is the earliest Quranic reference which gave Muslims to fight physically in Self-Defence, it was revealed right after Prophet (saw) migrated from Makkah to Madinah, the Makkans were going to wage war against Muslims:

(22:39) PERMISSION (to fight) is given to those against whom war is being waged - and, verily, God has indeed the power to help them (40) those who have been driven from their homelands against all right for no other reason than their saying, "Our Sustainer is God!" For if God had not enabled people to defend themselves against one another, (all) monasteries and churches and synagogues and mosques - in (all of) which God's name is abundantly extolled - would surely have been destroyed.


So if ISIS attacks Christians in Arabia to kill them, or Zionist Judeo Christian alliance wages a war against Orthodox Russian Christians in Ukraine or against Muslims of Palestine and Afghanistan then the oppressed have the right to fight back.

The following Verses of Al Baqarah (2:190-194) elaborating the Principle of War in Self Defence were revealed a year after:

AND FIGHT in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression - for verily, God does not love aggressors....


This and the following Verses lay down unequivocally the that only Self Defense (in the widest sense of the word) makes war permissible for Muslims. The defensive character of a fight in God's cause is moreover self evident in the reference to "those who wage war against you." and has been still further clarified in 22:39 "Permission (to fight) is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged."

These earliest fundamental principles of self defence as the only possible justification of war has been maintained throughout the Quran is evident from the following Verses 60:08:

As for such (of the unbelievers) as do not fight against you on account of (your) faith and neither drive you out of your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to behave towards them with full equity: for verily God loves those who act equitably.

Based on the Verse 60:08 nullifies the interpretation of Jihad being waged by ISIS.....they would surely be answerable on the Day of Judgment for what they are doing.

And based on this Verse it clearly and explicitly indicates to the Muslims that they are not supposed to wage offensive Jihad that is give three ultimatum to the entire Non Muslim World:
1. Submit
2. Pay Jizyah
3. Or the Sword

The Khulafa Rashidun fought wars based on this principle of Self Defense, they acted before the Persians and the Byzantines were gearing up to eliminate them, for this all I can tell you is to read History of the Caliphs to understand.

@ My Muslim Brothers here the Quran clearly forbids Use of Force or compulsion for the propagation of Islam - "Let him who will believe and let him who will disbelieve." (Quran 2:256, 18:29). The Sahaba knew the Quran better than us, they never waged offensive wars because they knew that converting Non Muslims through fight is against the Spirit of Islam. It was only to repel aggression as a result of which the Persians and the Byzantine empires fell.
Greetings Syed.
Within Islam isn’t there the principle of abrogation? If so Sahih ak Bakhari 4354 states the last chapter of the Quran received by Mohamed was Surah Bara’a (Surah 9). Therefore wouldn’t that abrogate earlier verses?
Also as mentioned in my other posts Surah 9.29 does not mention attack the Jews and Christians because they are attacking you. Instead it says attack them because of their false beliefs. Also the Rashidun Caliphate was expansionist – meaning it was aggressive.
Reply

ardianto
08-24-2014, 01:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
How can you say the Quran is not law itself. I thought the Quran is on tablets in heaven and recited from God through Gabriel and Mohammad ? These verses state from Allah that the Quran is literal, clear, perfect, fully explained, firm, and explaining all things. Quran 6.14, 11.1, 12.1, 16.89, 27.1, 41.3, 57.9.

You say that the situation was important and that the conflict already happened when that verse revealed which both parties attacked each other. Do you mean the historical and cultural context at that time?
regarding the Quran verse 9.29. Lets look at the historical context to it then. According to the esteemed Muslim scholar
Ibn Kathir's in The Battles of the Prophet p. 183-4.

Allah, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. The Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah. Allah says,Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Surah 9. 29)
Mohamad decided to fight the Romans in order to call them to Islam.

There is nothing here about any Romans attacking the Muslims. This was about Muhammad stopping non-Muslims from taking religious pilgrimages to Mecca. The Quraish (now Muslims) were worried that this would interfere with their profits and Muhammad received a revelation, saying, "If you're worried about money, don't worry, because God's going to enrich you by sending you to fight the People of the Book, until they convert to Islam or pay the Jizya!"

So If the Roman Empire had converted to Islam, Mecca would have tons of pilgrims visiting the Ka'ba. If the Romans decided to pay the Jizya instead, Muslims would still be making lots of money. It seems, then, that the motive for Allah's command in Surah 9:29 was simply to fight people until they started sending money to the Muslims.

Also remember Mohammad had written threatening letters to foreign Kings. There is nothing defensive about any of this.
Not every verse in Qur'an is automatically becomes a command for every Muslim (this what I mean with law). This is why I said that Qur'an is a source of law, but not the law itself. Verse 9: 29 is an example. That verse is not automatically becomes a command for Muslims to always fight non-Muslims. Peace agreement between Muslims and non-Muslims is permissible. Different than verses about fasting which automatically become command.

Qur'an was not revealed in form of tablet. But Allah told verses to angel Gabriel, and then angel Gabriel told again to prophet Muhammad.

The source from Muslim historians say that conflict between Muslims and Romans already happened in that time although only in small scale and sporadic. The command to fight in that verse was not to make Muslims got money after the polytheists banned to visit Ka'bah.
Reply

syed_z
08-24-2014, 05:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
Greetings Syed.
Within Islam isn’t there the principle of abrogation? If so Sahih ak Bakhari 4354 states the last chapter of the Quran received by Mohamed was Surah Bara’a (Surah 9). Therefore wouldn’t that abrogate earlier verses?
Interesting... and Greeting to you as well...

I see you are quite informed about the Abrogation and when was the last Surah revealed Etc.

The abrogation does not mean that the entire Quranic Verses which were revealed earlier have been abrogated for newer ones and though they still appear in the Quran they should be ignored, that is wrong way to approach the Quran. All its Verses compliment each other, please note.

The Abrogation Subject is a different subject unless you can prove it to me that all the Verses I have quoted from Quran have been abrogated for 9:29. Please prove it.


format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
Also as mentioned in my other posts Surah 9.29 does not mention attack the Jews and Christians because they are attacking you. Instead it says attack them because of their false beliefs.
The 9:29 must be read in the context of earlier revelation on Self Defence (2:190-194, 22:39). So the Jews and Christians for example the Zionists of today or the Crusaders of the past when attacked Muslims, the Quran explicitly informs us to fight them and defend yourselves against them. Simple. It does not mean to fight the Jews and Christians because of their belief, because then the Quran would be contradicting itself because in other places it speaks of Christians being closest to the Muslims (5:82).


format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
Also the Rashidun Caliphate was expansionist – meaning it was aggressive.
Please elaborate on this...how?
Reply

syed_z
08-24-2014, 06:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
Also remember Mohammad had written threatening letters to foreign Kings. There is nothing defensive about any of this.
. A Letter to Chosroes, Emperor of Persia

"In the Name of Allâh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.



From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allâh to Chosroes, king of Persia.



Peace be upon him who follows true guidance, believes in Allâh and His Messenger and testifies that there is no god but Allâh Alone with no associate, and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger. I invite you to accept the religion of Allâh. I am the Messenger of Allâh sent to all people in order that I may infuse fear of Allâh in every living person, and that the charge may be proved against those who reject the Truth. Accept Islam as your religion so that you may live in security, otherwise, you will be responsible for all the sins of the Magians."



‘Abdullah bin Hudhafa As-Sahmi was chosen to carry the letter. This envoy carried it to the king of Bahrain but we do not know as yet if the latter despatched to Chosroes by one of his men or chose ‘Abdullah himself.



The proud monarch was enraged by the style of the letter as the name of the Prophet [pbuh] had been put above his own name. He tore the letter into shreds and forthwith dictated a command to his viceroy in Yemen to send a couple of troopers to arrest the Prophet and bring him to his presence. The governor, Bazan by name, immediately sent two men to Madinah for the purpose. As soon as the men reached Madinah, the Prophet [pbuh] was informed by a Divine Revelation that Pervez, the emperor of Persia, had been murdered by his son. The Prophet [pbuh] disclosed to them the news and they were stunned. He added asking them to tell their new monarch that Islam would prevail everywhere and outstrip the sovereignty of Chosroes himself. They hurried back to Bazan and communicated to him what they heard. Meanwhile, Sherweh, the new monarch sent a letter to Bazan confirming the news and bidding him to stop any procedures as regards the Prophet till further notice. Bazan, together with the Persians in Yemen, went into the folds of Islam, and gladly signified his adhesion to the Prophet. [Fath Al-Bari 8/127,128]




Is this threatening? Or was sending troopers to summon our Blessed Prophet (saw) was threatening?

Also please answer why isn't Muhammad (Saw) asking for Jizyah? According to you he should be threatening him to pay Jizyah in case of rejecting Islam?

The Prophet (saw) being the only Messenger of Allah (Swt) at that time on earth was obligated to invite all Nations and Tribes to Islam and so he naturally approached the head of state and inform him about the Message of God. Prophet Jesus (a.s) would've done the same had he been sent to All Mankind and Moses (a.s) as well, but they were only sent to the Tribe of Israel.
Reply

Jedi_Mindset
08-24-2014, 08:56 PM
As a muslim can someone answer me this? These are genuine questions, some out of ignorance of the particular situations at that time.

Though jihad should be defensive (if a enemy is waging war against islam and entering muslim lands, killing muslims) muslims armies still entered the land of the romans (europe). The ottoman armies reached austria, and muslims also conquered sicily and al-andalus. We fought plenty of wars in north africa as well mainly against pagan berber tribes. Also india was took over by the sword i believe, though many areas were took over peacefully through da'wah and trade in SE Asia.

question still stands, if jihad was purely defensive, why did we enter europe itself?
Reply

Karl
08-24-2014, 11:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
As a muslim can someone answer me this? These are genuine questions, some out of ignorance of the particular situations at that time.

Though jihad should be defensive (if a enemy is waging war against islam and entering muslim lands, killing muslims) muslims armies still entered the land of the romans (europe). The ottoman armies reached austria, and muslims also conquered sicily and al-andalus. We fought plenty of wars in north africa as well mainly against pagan berber tribes. Also india was took over by the sword i believe, though many areas were took over peacefully through da'wah and trade in SE Asia.

question still stands, if jihad was purely defensive, why did we enter europe itself?
People are just people whatever the religion, and megalomaniacs always rationalize that conquest is the best defence. "The best form of defence is attack". Paranoia and fear, booty and plunder, under the banner of glory and righteousness. It has always been that way since the dawn of civilization. In very ancient times before the concept of property and any form of government and people were few in number, people just shared the land like other animals and there was peace.
Evil infiltrates all forms of order and civilizations.
Reply

daveyats
08-25-2014, 06:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
As a muslim can someone answer me this? These are genuine questions, some out of ignorance of the particular situations at that time.

Though jihad should be defensive (if a enemy is waging war against islam and entering muslim lands, killing muslims) muslims armies still entered the land of the romans (europe). The ottoman armies reached austria, and muslims also conquered sicily and al-andalus. We fought plenty of wars in north africa as well mainly against pagan berber tribes. Also india was took over by the sword i believe, though many areas were took over peacefully through da'wah and trade in SE Asia.

question still stands, if jihad was purely defensive, why did we enter europe itself?
A few logical possibilities...

1. Those muslims misinterpreted the Koran and went on an offensive jihad. ->this would be a gross misinterpretation if the Koran was clear on what is allowed and what is not allowed for jihad. From reading this thread, I think the Koran is not clear on the subject.

2. Those muslims ignored the Koran and furthered Islam by illegal means.

3. The conquest was purely political. They just happened to convert people to Islam wherever they went.

4. Spreading Islam through conquest is an acceptable interpretation of jihad.

my 2cts.
Reply

syed_z
08-25-2014, 06:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
As a muslim can someone answer me this? These are genuine questions, some out of ignorance of the particular situations at that time.

Though jihad should be defensive (if a enemy is waging war against islam and entering muslim lands, killing muslims) muslims armies still entered the land of the romans (europe). The ottoman armies reached austria, and muslims also conquered sicily and al-andalus. We fought plenty of wars in north africa as well mainly against pagan berber tribes. Also india was took over by the sword i believe, though many areas were took over peacefully through da'wah and trade in SE Asia.

question still stands, if jihad was purely defensive, why did we enter europe itself?

Very good question....

Btw India wasn't taken by the sword, even though conquerors did go to India, yet it was the Sufis who with their tolerance and excellent character inspired the hearts of hundreds of thousands of Hindus who accepted Islam. Had the Sufis been literalistic orthodox mullas like today we have plenty around the world, they would never have come close to them and accepted Islam. Great Sages such as Khwaja Muinuddin Chisti, Shah Hamdani of Kashmir and Jalaluddin Bukhari (May Allah (swt) have Mercy on them).

As for why did Muslims enter the lands of Europe, if you speak of the Ottomans, then they were unjust in waging wars against Eastern Orthodox Christian European states which comprise today of Russia, Hungary, Ukraine, Poland Etc. They kept waging wars against them, either conquered them or forced to pay Jizyah, made their women slaves and took the beautiful to their harems, supported the Tatar Muslims (of modern day Crimea) to raid Russian lands and take women captive, took Christian boys from their parents and raised them as Janissaries. All such actions by Ottomans were wrong, against the teachings of our Beloved Prophet (saw).

The Prophet (saw) himself said “The best of people are my generation, then those who follow them."

Beginning from the 3rd generations of Ummah infighting and Kingship (Mulke Aaz) began which ended with the Ottomans. Brother killed his own brother to get the throne. However, there did come in between God Fearing Kings like Salahuddin (r.a), Umer bin Abdul Aziz (r.a) and many others who did not do Jihad for expanding their territories.
Reply

Jedi_Mindset
08-25-2014, 06:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by syed_z
Very good question....

Btw India wasn't taken by the sword, even though conquerors did go to India, yet it was the Sufis who with their tolerance and excellent character inspired the hearts of hundreds of thousands of Hindus who accepted Islam. Had the Sufis been literalistic orthodox mullas like today we have plenty around the world, they would never have come close to them and accepted Islam. Great Sages such as Khwaja Muinuddin Chisti, Shah Hamdani of Kashmir and Jalaluddin Bukhari (May Allah (swt) have Mercy on them).

As for why did Muslims enter the lands of Europe, if you speak of the Ottomans, then they were unjust in waging wars against Eastern Orthodox Christian European states which comprise today of Russia, Hungary, Ukraine, Poland Etc. They kept waging wars against them, either conquered them or forced to pay Jizyah, made their women slaves and took the beautiful to their harems, supported the Tatar Muslims (of modern day Crimea) to raid Russian lands and take women captive, took Christian boys from their parents and raised them as Janissaries. All such actions by Ottomans were wrong, against the teachings of our Beloved Prophet (saw).

The Prophet (saw) himself said “The best of people are my generation, then those who follow them."

Beginning from the 3rd generations of Ummah infighting and Kingship (Mulke Aaz) began which ended with the Ottomans. Brother killed his own brother to get the throne. However, there did come in between God Fearing Kings like Salahuddin (r.a), Umer bin Abdul Aziz (r.a) and many others who did not do Jihad for expanding their territories.
Ok but what about al-andalus and southern france?
Reply

syed_z
08-26-2014, 06:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
Ok but what about al-andalus and southern france?
Salaam... I don't know much about the reason for that attack, but I believe it was not Jihad, it was for the sake of conquest,may be someone else can assist us here.
Reply

Ahmad H
08-27-2014, 02:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
You askHow are Al-Qaeda and ISIS fighting for self-defense for Islam? I don’t know- you tell me. Have Muslims always fought for self defense. I don’t believe so. Probably they are getting their ideas from the Quran or hadith.
ISIS and Al-Qaeda are getting their facts from the Qur'an and Ahadith and distorting them. This is much like how Christianity distorted teachings of the Bible and decided that they had to fight the infidels. The crusaders were terrorists, and so are these terror groups who distort the beautiful teachings of Islam.

format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
You talk about the verse being in context to the past. Ok. Here is some historical context to Quaran verse 9.29. This is from Ibn Kathir in The Battles of the Prophet p. 183-4.
“Allah, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. The Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah. Allah says “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Surah 9. 29).

There is nothing here about any Romans attacking the Muslims. This was about Muhammad stopping non-Muslims from taking religious pilgrimages to Mecca. The Quraish (now Muslims) were worried that this would interfere with their profits and Muhammad received a revelation, saying, "If you're worried about money, don't worry, because God's going to enrich you by sending you to fight the People of the Book, until they convert to Islam or pay the Jizya!"

So If the Roman Empire had converted to Islam, Mecca would have lots of pilgrims visiting the Ka'ba. If the Romans elected to pay the Jizya instead, Muslims would still be taking in lots of money. It seems, then, that the motive for Allah's command in Surah 9:29 was simply to fight people until they started sending money to the Muslims. Also remember Mohammad had written threatening letters to foreign Kings. There is nothing defensive about any of this.
In Tafsir Ibn Kathir, it is stated:
Allah said,
(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.) Therefore, when People of the Scriptures disbelieved in Muhammad , they had no beneficial faith in any Messenger or what the Messengers brought. Rather, they followed their religions because this conformed with their ideas, lusts and the ways of their forefathers, not because they are Allah's Law and religion. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad , because all Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad's advent and commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him, even though he is the mightiest of all Messengers. Therefore, they do not follow the religion of earlier Prophets because these religions came from Allah, but because these suit their desires and lusts. Therefore, their claimed faith in an earlier Prophet will not benefit them because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all Prophets . Hence Allah's statement,
(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture,) This honorable Ayah was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination. The Messenger sent his intent to various Arab areas around Al-Madinah to gather forces, and he collected an army of thirty thousand. Some people from Al-Madinah and some hypocrites, in and around it, lagged behind, for that year was a year of drought and intense heat. The Messenger of Allah marched, heading towards Ash-Sham to fight the Romans until he reached Tabuk, where he set camp for about twenty days next to its water resources. He then prayed to Allah for a decision and went back to Al-Madinah because it was a hard year and the people were weak, as we will mention, Allah willing.


War with idolaters having been dealt with in previous verses, fighting with the People of the Book is introduced with this verse. The verse refers to those People of the Book who lived in Arabia. Like the idolaters of that country, they too had been actively hostile to Islam and tried to exterminate it. Muslims were, therefore, ordered to fight them unless they agreed to live as their loyal and peaceful subjects. The Jizya, referred to in the verse, was the tax which such non-Muslims had to pay as free subjects of the Muslim State in return for the protection they enjoyed under it. Islam has ordained that in Arabia, the birthplace of Islam and its headquarters, only the People of tee Book, and not idolaters, could live as subjects by paying the Jizya, while outside Arabia all non-Muslims could live under a Muslim Government on payment of this tax. Arabia, being the cradle and center of Islam and, as it were, the citadel thereof, was to be kept free from idolaters. It should also be noted that as against Jizya which was imposed on non-Muslims, the tax imposed on Muslims is called Zakat which is a heavier tax than Jizya, and Muslimss, in addition to this tax, had to perform military service which was very hard in those days from which non-Muslims were exempt. Thus the latter in a way fared better, for they had to pay a lighter tax and were also free from military service.

format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
You said “the verses about Jihad, for example, are meant to demonstrate what occurred in the battles of the Muslims of the past” I thought the Quran is on tablets in heaven and recited in Arabic from God through Gabriel and Mohammad ? These verses state from Allah that the Quran is literal, clear, perfect, fully explained, firm, and explaining all things. Quran 6.14, 11.1, 12.1, 16.89, 27.1, 41.3, 57.9.
The verse of the Qur'an which is unanimously referred to by all Muslim scholars stating which type of verses are in the Holy Qur'an, if the following:

3:7 He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.

This verse above is clear, but if you wanted more information then I can post many lengthy posts about scholars giving long explanations about the meanings of this verse alone and how it relates to explaining the categories of verses in the Holy Qur'an. What is clear is that there are verses which are clear and foundational and then there are verses which are unclear. The Qur'an is not a literal Word, it is BOTH literal and metaphorical. It has parables, stories, narrations, descriptions, predictions, etc. It has many types of discourse.

With regards to my statement that the verses of Jihad require some knowledge of those instances, I refer you to Hazrat Shah Waliyullah (ra), who wrote in his book Al-Fauz Al-Kabir, a book which explains the sciences of the commentary of the Holy Qur'an, that:
[BEGIN QUOTE]
An account of the Holy War (Jihad) has been given in chapters Al-Baqara and Al-Anfal and at some other places. The penal laws (Hudud) have been mentioned in chapters Al-Ma'ida and Al-Nur. Similarly, an account of the inheritance has been given in chapter Al-Nisa' and that of marriage and divorce in chapters Al-Baqara and Al-Nisa, and at some other places.
When this form of narration, the benefit of which is available to the whole community over, there comes an other form of narration, for example, sometimes question was put to the Holy Prophet (saw)and he gave a reply, or during an event when the believers made sacrifices of their lives as well as properties while the hypocrites showed self admiration and stinginess. God praised the believers and cursed the hypocrites holding out threats to them. Or some thing happened in which the Muslims were helped and saved from harm by the enemy. God, thus, showed favours to the Muslims and thereby reminded them of those favours. At times, a situation arose wherein a need was felt for giving a warning, a rebuke, a hint, an allusion, a command, a prohibition and denouncement. God, in this connection, revealed what pertained to it. It is, therefore, necessary for the commentator to make a mention of those stories by way of a summary.
[END QUOTE]
Reply

Ahmad H
08-27-2014, 02:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by syed_z
Salaam... I don't know much about the reason for that attack, but I believe it was not Jihad, it was for the sake of conquest,may be someone else can assist us here.
Gladly, the key lies in the fact that the Khilafat ar-Rashidun was the end of the Khilafat for Muslims. After the first four Khulafa, the monarchy started. Thus, the best era of rule of Muslims was only the first 30 years. And I have more than enough proof for this, none of this is made up:

Sa'eed bin Jumhan narrated:
"Safinah narrated to me, he said: 'The Messenger of Allah(s.a.w) said: "Al-Khilafah will be in my Ummah for thirty years, then there will be monarchy after that."' Then Safinah said to me: 'Count the Khilafah of Abu Bakr,' then he said: 'Count the Khilafah of 'Umar and the Khilafah of 'Uthman.' Then he said to me: 'Count the Khilafah of 'Ali."' He said: "So we found that they add up to thirty years." Sa'eed said: "I said to him: 'Banu Umaiyyah claim that the Khilafah is among them.' He said: 'Banu Az-Zarqa' lie, rather they are a monarchy, among the worst of monarchies."'
(Jami' At-Tirmidhi)
Link: Hadith - Chapters On Al-Fitan - Jami` at-Tirmidhi - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (??? ???? ???? ? ???)

Narrated Safinah:

The Prophet (ﷺ) said: The Caliphate of Prophecy will last thirty years; then Allah will give the Kingdom of His Kingdom to anyone He wills.
Sa'id told that Safinah said to him: Calculate Abu Bakr's caliphate as two years, 'Umar's as ten, 'Uthman's as twelve and 'Ali so and so. Sa'id said: I said to Safinah: They conceive that 'Ali was not a caliph. He replied: The buttocks of Marwan told a lie.

(Sunan Abu Dawud)
Link: Hadith - Book of Model Behavior of the Prophet (Kitab Al-Sunnah) - Sunan Abi Dawud - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (??? ???? ???? ? ???)

After that, there were deviations in the Islamic rule. I am not saying that the rulers afterwards were not righteous, but that would have to wait until tyranny started. It is not clear as to when that started exactly, but suffice it to say, Muslims still suffer from that now. It makes my heart bleed to see it but it is true.

During some later years, it might have just been the tyrannical governments which kept attacking other nations. I base my thinking on these above narrations. Unfortunately, I do not know more than that. I hope it helped.
Reply

Genesis
08-28-2014, 09:44 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ardianto
Not every verse in Qur'an is automatically becomes a command for every Muslim (this what I mean with law). This is why I said that Qur'an is a source of law, but not the law itself. Verse 9: 29 is an example. That verse is not automatically becomes a command for Muslims to always fight non-Muslims. Peace agreement between Muslims and non-Muslims is permissible. Different than verses about fasting which automatically become command.

Qur'an was not revealed in form of tablet. But Allah told verses to angel Gabriel, and then angel Gabriel told again to prophet Muhammad.

The source from Muslim historians say that conflict between Muslims and Romans already happened in that time although only in small scale and sporadic. The command to fight in that verse was not to make Muslims got money after the polytheists banned to visit Ka'bah.
You talk about the law and the source of law. If the Quran is clear, perfect and explained in detail as Allah says it is then I don’t know why you are separating the law and the source of the law? See the verses below-

“This is) a Book, the Ayat whereof are perfect (in every sphere of knowledge), and then explained in detail from One (Allah), Who is All-Wise Well-Acquainted (with all things).”
11.1,

“These are the verses of the Book that is clear.”
12.1 and 27.1.

“A Book whereof the Ayat are explained in detail”
41.3,

“It is He Who sends down manifest Ayat to His servant that He may bring you out from darkness into light.”
57.9.

You said “the command to fight in that verse was not to make Muslims got money after the polytheists banned to visit Ka'bah.” But Airdanto the Quran in verses 9.28 – 30 are clear that is was about money …

"You who believe! Truly the pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-Wise. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Surah 9:28-29)

Also Ibn Kathir was clear in saying that it was about money in “ The Battles of the Prophet”.


Reply

Genesis
08-28-2014, 09:49 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by syed_z
Interesting... and Greeting to you as well...

I see you are quite informed about the Abrogation and when was the last Surah revealed Etc.

The abrogation does not mean that the entire Quranic Verses which were revealed earlier have been abrogated for newer ones and though they still appear in the Quran they should be ignored, that is wrong way to approach the Quran. All its Verses compliment each other, please note.

The Abrogation Subject is a different subject unless you can prove it to me that all the Verses I have quoted from Quran have been abrogated for 9:29. Please prove it.




The 9:29 must be read in the context of earlier revelation on Self Defence (2:190-194, 22:39). So the Jews and Christians for example the Zionists of today or the Crusaders of the past when attacked Muslims, the Quran explicitly informs us to fight them and defend yourselves against them. Simple. It does not mean to fight the Jews and Christians because of their belief, because then the Quran would be contradicting itself because in other places it speaks of Christians being closest to the Muslims (5:82).




Please elaborate on this...how?
From what I can tell about abrogation there seem to be as many ways of understanding abrogation as there are Muslims.
Do all Muslims agree on how many verses of the Quran that have been abrogated? Other there many or only a few?
Is it true that others deny there is any abrogation at all? There appears no general agreement as to what all the abrogated verses are and not all hold to the same set of abrogated ayahs. Is that correct?
The issue of abrogation is a very serious problem for the Qur'an. As I have said. If the Qur'an is the actual Word of God, then it is eternal and, is thus incapable of change. If the Qur'an is the Word of God, it should be perfect and no verse can be superior to another.

You say 9.29 needs to be read in the context of earlier revelation on Self Defense (2:190-194, 22:39). However if you read 9.29 in context starting at verse 28 you will see that it was about the Muslims wanting money off the Romans and it does not say to defend themselves from the Romans who are attacking them but instead it says Fight those who believe not in Allah.” In other words fight those who do not have the same religion as you!

"O You who believe! Truly the pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-Wise. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Surah 9:28-29)

Ibn Kathir says-

“Allah, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. On that, Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, Most High, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah.”
(Ibn Kathir, The Battles of the Prophet, pp. 183-4)

So there you have it - Muhammad received a revelation from God, saying, "If you're worried about money, don't worry, because God's going to enrich you by sending you to fight the People of the Book, until they convert to Islam or pay the Jizya!" According to Ibn KathirThis was about fighting for money ! This was not about self defense.

You saythey (People of the Book) had been actively hostile to Islam and tried to exterminate it and Muslims were ordered to fight them unless they agreed to live as their loyal and peaceful subjects” Where is your proof of this? There's absolutely nothing in 9.29 or Ibn Kathir commentary about Romans attacking the Muslims. As I’ve shown you above – it was about Muslims leading an offensive Jihad against Christians and Jews due to them having a different religion and for Muslims to get money.

Yes the Quran is contradicting itself.

You asked me to elaborate on the expansionist Rashidun Caliphate. Its obvious. A Caliphate that is about self defense protects its borders. It does not expand its borders. The only was the Rashidun Caliphate could expand was by offensive Jihad. And all the caliphates after it for that matter.
Reply

Genesis
08-28-2014, 09:53 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by syed_z
. A Letter to Chosroes, Emperor of Persia
"In the Name of Allâh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.



From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allâh to Chosroes, king of Persia.



Peace be upon him who follows true guidance, believes in Allâh and His Messenger and testifies that there is no god but Allâh Alone with no associate, and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger. I invite you to accept the religion of Allâh. I am the Messenger of Allâh sent to all people in order that I may infuse fear of Allâh in every living person, and that the charge may be proved against those who reject the Truth. Accept Islam as your religion so that you may live in security, otherwise, you will be responsible for all the sins of the Magians."



‘Abdullah bin Hudhafa As-Sahmi was chosen to carry the letter. This envoy carried it to the king of Bahrain but we do not know as yet if the latter despatched to Chosroes by one of his men or chose ‘Abdullah himself.



The proud monarch was enraged by the style of the letter as the name of the Prophet [pbuh] had been put above his own name. He tore the letter into shreds and forthwith dictated a command to his viceroy in Yemen to send a couple of troopers to arrest the Prophet and bring him to his presence. The governor, Bazan by name, immediately sent two men to Madinah for the purpose. As soon as the men reached Madinah, the Prophet [pbuh] was informed by a Divine Revelation that Pervez, the emperor of Persia, had been murdered by his son. The Prophet [pbuh] disclosed to them the news and they were stunned. He added asking them to tell their new monarch that Islam would prevail everywhere and outstrip the sovereignty of Chosroes himself. They hurried back to Bazan and communicated to him what they heard. Meanwhile, Sherweh, the new monarch sent a letter to Bazan confirming the news and bidding him to stop any procedures as regards the Prophet till further notice. Bazan, together with the Persians in Yemen, went into the folds of Islam, and gladly signified his adhesion to the Prophet. [Fath Al-Bari 8/127,128]




Is this threatening? Or was sending troopers to summon our Blessed Prophet (saw) was threatening?

Also please answer why isn't Muhammad (Saw) asking for Jizyah? According to you he should be threatening him to pay Jizyah in case of rejecting Islam?

The Prophet (saw) being the only Messenger of Allah (Swt) at that time on earth was obligated to invite all Nations and Tribes to Islam and so he naturally approached the head of state and inform him about the Message of God. Prophet Jesus (a.s) would've done the same had he been sent to All Mankind and Moses (a.s) as well, but they were only sent to the Tribe of Israel.
To the King of Ethioia-
In the name of God the Beneficent, the Merciful: From Muhammad the Prophet of Islam to the Negus, the king of Ethiopia: peace be on you, I thank God for you, The God, who is no god but him, the King, the Holy, the Guardian, and I witness that Jesus, the son of Mary is the Spirit of God and His Word. The word he gave to the pure the believer Mary, and from this word she gave birth to Jesus. God made Jesus from his soul just as he made Adam from his hand. I invite you and your soldiers to believe the God the Almighty. I wrote and advised you, so accept my advise. Peace upon those who follow the right way.

So accept my advise – or what ?? This sounds like a threat !

To the King of Bahrain -
In the name of God the Beneficent, the Merciful: From Muhammad the Prophet of God to Munzir bin Sawa, may peace be on you! I praise God, who is one and there none to be worshiped but except him. I bear evidence to the oneness of God and that I am a servant of God and his Prophet. Thereafter I remind you of God. Whoever accepts admonition does it for his own good. Whoever followed my messengers and acted in accordance their guidance; he, in fact, accepted my advice. My messengers have highly praised your behavior. You shall continue in your present office. You should remain faithful to and his Prophet. I accept your recommendation regarding the people of Bahrain. I forgive the offenses of the offenders.

This also sounds like a threat. Continue to follow Mohameds advice or be expelled from his present office!


To The King of the Copts-
In the name of Allah the Rahman, the Merciful. From the Apostle of Allah to the Mukaukis, chief of the Copts. Peace be upon him who follows the guidance. Next, I summon thee with the appeal of Islam: become a Moslem and thou shalt be safe. God shall give thee thy reward twofold. But if thou decline then on thee is the guilt of the Copts. O ye people of the Book, come unto an equal arrangement between us and you, that we should serve none save God, associating nothing with Him, and not taking one another for Lords besides God. And if ye decline, then bear witness that we are Moslems.

To the King of Oman-
Peace be upon him who follows true guidance; thereafter I invite both of you to the Call of Islam. Embrace Islam. Allâh has sent me as a Prophet to all His creatures in order that I may instil fear of Allâh in the hearts of His disobedient creatures so that there may be left no excuse for those who deny Allâh. If you two accept Islam, you will remain in command of your country; but if you refuse my Call, you’ve got to remember that all your possessions are perishable. My horsemen will appropriate your land, and my Prophethood will assume preponderance over your kingship."

A threat ! Accept Islam or else “My horsemen will appropriate your land” !

You ask Also why isn't Muhammad asking for Jizyah in the letter you quoted? The letter you quoted was to the Persian king. He was not one of the People of the Book.

You say Jesus and Moses would've done the same as Mohamad had they been sent to All Mankind but they were only sent to the Tribe of Israel
If you read the following verses in the Bible you will see this is not true-
In the Injil we have-
Mt 15:28, Mk 7:29-30, Mt 10:18. Lk 7:2-10, Mt 20:28, Mk 10:45, Jn 3:16; 4:42; 12:32; Mt 10:18; 24:14; 28:18-20; Mk 13:10; 14:9; 16:15; Lk 4:25-30; 24:47; Jn 17:20-21: Acts 1:8. Mt 8:11-12; 21:43; 25:31-32; Lk 13:28-30; Jn 10:16; 11:52.

And in the Torah we have-
Gn 12:3; Is 2:2; 9:1; 40:5; 42:1,4 = Mt 12:18,21; 49:6; 60:1-3; Mc 4:1-5; 5:4; Zc 9:9-10.

Reply

Genesis
08-28-2014, 09:55 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by syed_z
Very good question....

Btw India wasn't taken by the sword, even though conquerors did go to India, yet it was the Sufis who with their tolerance and excellent character inspired the hearts of hundreds of thousands of Hindus who accepted Islam. Had the Sufis been literalistic orthodox mullas like today we have plenty around the world, they would never have come close to them and accepted Islam. Great Sages such as Khwaja Muinuddin Chisti, Shah Hamdani of Kashmir and Jalaluddin Bukhari (May Allah (swt) have Mercy on them).

As for why did Muslims enter the lands of Europe, if you speak of the Ottomans, then they were unjust in waging wars against Eastern Orthodox Christian European states which comprise today of Russia, Hungary, Ukraine, Poland Etc. They kept waging wars against them, either conquered them or forced to pay Jizyah, made their women slaves and took the beautiful to their harems, supported the Tatar Muslims (of modern day Crimea) to raid Russian lands and take women captive, took Christian boys from their parents and raised them as Janissaries. All such actions by Ottomans were wrong, against the teachings of our Beloved Prophet (saw).

The Prophet (saw) himself said “The best of people are my generation, then those who follow them."

Beginning from the 3rd generations of Ummah infighting and Kingship (Mulke Aaz) began which ended with the Ottomans. Brother killed his own brother to get the throne. However, there did come in between God Fearing Kings like Salahuddin (r.a), Umer bin Abdul Aziz (r.a) and many others who did not do Jihad for expanding their territories.
What do you mean India wasn’t taken by the sword. What about the battle of Rajastan and the Ghaznavid invasions?
Reply

Genesis
08-28-2014, 10:02 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmad H
ISIS and Al-Qaeda are getting their facts from the Qur'an and Ahadith and distorting them. This is much like how Christianity distorted teachings of the Bible and decided that they had to fight the infidels. The crusaders were terrorists, and so are these terror groups who distort the beautiful teachings of Islam.



In Tafsir Ibn Kathir, it is stated:
Allah said,
(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.) Therefore, when People of the Scriptures disbelieved in Muhammad , they had no beneficial faith in any Messenger or what the Messengers brought. Rather, they followed their religions because this conformed with their ideas, lusts and the ways of their forefathers, not because they are Allah's Law and religion. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad , because all Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad's advent and commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him, even though he is the mightiest of all Messengers. Therefore, they do not follow the religion of earlier Prophets because these religions came from Allah, but because these suit their desires and lusts. Therefore, their claimed faith in an earlier Prophet will not benefit them because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all Prophets . Hence Allah's statement,
(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture,) This honorable Ayah was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination. The Messenger sent his intent to various Arab areas around Al-Madinah to gather forces, and he collected an army of thirty thousand. Some people from Al-Madinah and some hypocrites, in and around it, lagged behind, for that year was a year of drought and intense heat. The Messenger of Allah marched, heading towards Ash-Sham to fight the Romans until he reached Tabuk, where he set camp for about twenty days next to its water resources. He then prayed to Allah for a decision and went back to Al-Madinah because it was a hard year and the people were weak, as we will mention, Allah willing.


War with idolaters having been dealt with in previous verses, fighting with the People of the Book is introduced with this verse. The verse refers to those People of the Book who lived in Arabia. Like the idolaters of that country, they too had been actively hostile to Islam and tried to exterminate it. Muslims were, therefore, ordered to fight them unless they agreed to live as their loyal and peaceful subjects. The Jizya, referred to in the verse, was the tax which such non-Muslims had to pay as free subjects of the Muslim State in return for the protection they enjoyed under it. Islam has ordained that in Arabia, the birthplace of Islam and its headquarters, only the People of tee Book, and not idolaters, could live as subjects by paying the Jizya, while outside Arabia all non-Muslims could live under a Muslim Government on payment of this tax. Arabia, being the cradle and center of Islam and, as it were, the citadel thereof, was to be kept free from idolaters. It should also be noted that as against Jizya which was imposed on non-Muslims, the tax imposed on Muslims is called Zakat which is a heavier tax than Jizya, and Muslimss, in addition to this tax, had to perform military service which was very hard in those days from which non-Muslims were exempt. Thus the latter in a way fared better, for they had to pay a lighter tax and were also free from military service.



The verse of the Qur'an which is unanimously referred to by all Muslim scholars stating which type of verses are in the Holy Qur'an, if the following:

3:7 He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.

This verse above is clear, but if you wanted more information then I can post many lengthy posts about scholars giving long explanations about the meanings of this verse alone and how it relates to explaining the categories of verses in the Holy Qur'an. What is clear is that there are verses which are clear and foundational and then there are verses which are unclear. The Qur'an is not a literal Word, it is BOTH literal and metaphorical. It has parables, stories, narrations, descriptions, predictions, etc. It has many types of discourse.

With regards to my statement that the verses of Jihad require some knowledge of those instances, I refer you to Hazrat Shah Waliyullah (ra), who wrote in his book Al-Fauz Al-Kabir, a book which explains the sciences of the commentary of the Holy Qur'an, that:
[BEGIN QUOTE]
An account of the Holy War (Jihad) has been given in chapters Al-Baqara and Al-Anfal and at some other places. The penal laws (Hudud) have been mentioned in chapters Al-Ma'ida and Al-Nur. Similarly, an account of the inheritance has been given in chapter Al-Nisa' and that of marriage and divorce in chapters Al-Baqara and Al-Nisa, and at some other places.
When this form of narration, the benefit of which is available to the whole community over, there comes an other form of narration, for example, sometimes question was put to the Holy Prophet (saw)and he gave a reply, or during an event when the believers made sacrifices of their lives as well as properties while the hypocrites showed self admiration and stinginess. God praised the believers and cursed the hypocrites holding out threats to them. Or some thing happened in which the Muslims were helped and saved from harm by the enemy. God, thus, showed favours to the Muslims and thereby reminded them of those favours. At times, a situation arose wherein a need was felt for giving a warning, a rebuke, a hint, an allusion, a command, a prohibition and denouncement. God, in this connection, revealed what pertained to it. It is, therefore, necessary for the commentator to make a mention of those stories by way of a summary.
[END QUOTE]
Yes you are right. All religions have their militants and the Crudsaders are an example of that. However they were far more removed from the Injil than what Muslims are removed from the Quran. Isa was a pacifist. Mohamad was a warrior. You will not find anything in the Injil to do with making war. The Quran is full of it.

You have only partly quoted Tafsir Ibn Kathir . Lets look at what he said again-

“Allah, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. On that, Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, Most High, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah.”
(Ibn Kathir, The Battles of the Prophet, pp. 183-4)

So there you have it - Muhammad received a revelation from God , saying, "If you're worried about money, don't worry, because God's going to enrich you by sending you to fight the People of the Book, until they convert to Islam or pay the Jizya!" According to Ibn KathirThis was about fighting for MONEY !

You saythey too (People of the Book) had been actively hostile to Islam and tried to exterminate it. Muslims were, therefore, ordered to fight them unless they agreed to live as their loyal and peaceful subjects”
Where is your proof of this? According to the Quran 9.28 – 30 and to Ibn Kathir it was the Muslims who launched an offensive Jihad to make money.

Yes Im aware of the Jizah tax. You say “Thus the latter (People of the Book) in a way fared better” By this you mean the
Dimmis or Zimmis? Well actually over history in much of the Islamic world Zimmis were treated as second class citizens. For example -

Zimmis were not allowed to build new churches, temples, or synagogues. They were allowed to renovate old churches provided they did not allow to add any new construction. Yet, Muslims, if they wish, were permitted to demolish all non-Muslim houses of worship in any land they conquer.
Zimmis were not allowed to pray or read their sacred books out loud at home or in churches, in case Muslims hear their prayers.
Zimmis were not allowed to print their religious books or sell them in public places and markets.
Zimmis were not allowed to install the cross on their houses or churches.
Zimmis were not allowed to congregate in the streets during their religious festivals; rather, each must quietly make his way to his church or temple.
A Muslim male can marry a Zimmi girl, but a Zimmi man is not allowed to marry a Muslim girl.Zimmis cannot testify against Muslims. They can only testify against other Zimmis . Their oaths are not considered valid in an Islamic court.
So how do Zimmis fare better when they are second class citizens?
You say some verses in the Quran are allegorical with hidden meanings. Except Allah says about the Quran –

“This is) a Book, the Ayat whereof are perfect (in every sphere of knowledge), and then explained in detail from One (Allah), Who is All-Wise Well-Acquainted (with all things).”
11.1,

“These are the verses of the Book that is clear.”
12.1 and 27.1.

“A Book whereof the Ayat are explained in detail”
41.3,

“It is He Who sends down manifest Ayat to His servant that He may bring you out from darkness into light.”
57.9.

You said you could send me lengthy posts from scholars as to the meanings of the verse. It just seems to me if the Quran is clear, perfect and explained in detail as Allah says about it then why the need for lengthy posts from scholars.
Reply

Genesis
08-28-2014, 10:03 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmad H
ISIS and Al-Qaeda are getting their facts from the Qur'an and Ahadith and distorting them. This is much like how Christianity distorted teachings of the Bible and decided that they had to fight the infidels. The crusaders were terrorists, and so are these terror groups who distort the beautiful teachings of Islam.



In Tafsir Ibn Kathir, it is stated:
Allah said,
(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.) Therefore, when People of the Scriptures disbelieved in Muhammad , they had no beneficial faith in any Messenger or what the Messengers brought. Rather, they followed their religions because this conformed with their ideas, lusts and the ways of their forefathers, not because they are Allah's Law and religion. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad , because all Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad's advent and commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him, even though he is the mightiest of all Messengers. Therefore, they do not follow the religion of earlier Prophets because these religions came from Allah, but because these suit their desires and lusts. Therefore, their claimed faith in an earlier Prophet will not benefit them because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all Prophets . Hence Allah's statement,
(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture,) This honorable Ayah was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination. The Messenger sent his intent to various Arab areas around Al-Madinah to gather forces, and he collected an army of thirty thousand. Some people from Al-Madinah and some hypocrites, in and around it, lagged behind, for that year was a year of drought and intense heat. The Messenger of Allah marched, heading towards Ash-Sham to fight the Romans until he reached Tabuk, where he set camp for about twenty days next to its water resources. He then prayed to Allah for a decision and went back to Al-Madinah because it was a hard year and the people were weak, as we will mention, Allah willing.


War with idolaters having been dealt with in previous verses, fighting with the People of the Book is introduced with this verse. The verse refers to those People of the Book who lived in Arabia. Like the idolaters of that country, they too had been actively hostile to Islam and tried to exterminate it. Muslims were, therefore, ordered to fight them unless they agreed to live as their loyal and peaceful subjects. The Jizya, referred to in the verse, was the tax which such non-Muslims had to pay as free subjects of the Muslim State in return for the protection they enjoyed under it. Islam has ordained that in Arabia, the birthplace of Islam and its headquarters, only the People of tee Book, and not idolaters, could live as subjects by paying the Jizya, while outside Arabia all non-Muslims could live under a Muslim Government on payment of this tax. Arabia, being the cradle and center of Islam and, as it were, the citadel thereof, was to be kept free from idolaters. It should also be noted that as against Jizya which was imposed on non-Muslims, the tax imposed on Muslims is called Zakat which is a heavier tax than Jizya, and Muslimss, in addition to this tax, had to perform military service which was very hard in those days from which non-Muslims were exempt. Thus the latter in a way fared better, for they had to pay a lighter tax and were also free from military service.



The verse of the Qur'an which is unanimously referred to by all Muslim scholars stating which type of verses are in the Holy Qur'an, if the following:

3:7 He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.

This verse above is clear, but if you wanted more information then I can post many lengthy posts about scholars giving long explanations about the meanings of this verse alone and how it relates to explaining the categories of verses in the Holy Qur'an. What is clear is that there are verses which are clear and foundational and then there are verses which are unclear. The Qur'an is not a literal Word, it is BOTH literal and metaphorical. It has parables, stories, narrations, descriptions, predictions, etc. It has many types of discourse.

With regards to my statement that the verses of Jihad require some knowledge of those instances, I refer you to Hazrat Shah Waliyullah (ra), who wrote in his book Al-Fauz Al-Kabir, a book which explains the sciences of the commentary of the Holy Qur'an, that:
[BEGIN QUOTE]
An account of the Holy War (Jihad) has been given in chapters Al-Baqara and Al-Anfal and at some other places. The penal laws (Hudud) have been mentioned in chapters Al-Ma'ida and Al-Nur. Similarly, an account of the inheritance has been given in chapter Al-Nisa' and that of marriage and divorce in chapters Al-Baqara and Al-Nisa, and at some other places.
When this form of narration, the benefit of which is available to the whole community over, there comes an other form of narration, for example, sometimes question was put to the Holy Prophet (saw)and he gave a reply, or during an event when the believers made sacrifices of their lives as well as properties while the hypocrites showed self admiration and stinginess. God praised the believers and cursed the hypocrites holding out threats to them. Or some thing happened in which the Muslims were helped and saved from harm by the enemy. God, thus, showed favours to the Muslims and thereby reminded them of those favours. At times, a situation arose wherein a need was felt for giving a warning, a rebuke, a hint, an allusion, a command, a prohibition and denouncement. God, in this connection, revealed what pertained to it. It is, therefore, necessary for the commentator to make a mention of those stories by way of a summary.
[END QUOTE]
Yes you are right. All religions have their militants and the Crudsaders are an example of that. However they were far more removed from the Injil than what Muslims are removed from the Quran. Isa was a pacifist. Mohamad was a warrior. You will not find anything in the Injil to do with making war. The Quran is full of it.

You have only partly quoted Tafsir Ibn Kathir . Lets look at what he said again-

“Allah, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. On that, Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, Most High, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah.”
(Ibn Kathir, The Battles of the Prophet, pp. 183-4)

So there you have it - Muhammad received a revelation from God , saying, "If you're worried about money, don't worry, because God's going to enrich you by sending you to fight the People of the Book, until they convert to Islam or pay the Jizya!" According to Ibn KathirThis was about fighting for MONEY !

You saythey too (People of the Book) had been actively hostile to Islam and tried to exterminate it. Muslims were, therefore, ordered to fight them unless they agreed to live as their loyal and peaceful subjects”
Where is your proof of this? According to the Quran 9.28 – 30 and to Ibn Kathir it was the Muslims who launched an offensive Jihad to make money.

Yes Im aware of the Jizah tax. You say “Thus the latter (People of the Book) in a way fared better” By this you mean the
Dimmis or Zimmis? Well actually over history in much of the Islamic world Zimmis were treated as second class citizens. For example -

Zimmis were not allowed to build new churches, temples, or synagogues. They were allowed to renovate old churches provided they did not allow to add any new construction. Yet, Muslims, if they wish, were permitted to demolish all non-Muslim houses of worship in any land they conquer.
Zimmis were not allowed to pray or read their sacred books out loud at home or in churches, in case Muslims hear their prayers.
Zimmis were not allowed to print their religious books or sell them in public places and markets.
Zimmis were not allowed to install the cross on their houses or churches.
Zimmis were not allowed to congregate in the streets during their religious festivals; rather, each must quietly make his way to his church or temple.
A Muslim male can marry a Zimmi girl, but a Zimmi man is not allowed to marry a Muslim girl.Zimmis cannot testify against Muslims. They can only testify against other Zimmis . Their oaths are not considered valid in an Islamic court.
So how do Zimmis fare better when they are second class citizens?
You say some verses in the Quran are allegorical with hidden meanings. Except Allah says about the Quran –

“This is) a Book, the Ayat whereof are perfect (in every sphere of knowledge), and then explained in detail from One (Allah), Who is All-Wise Well-Acquainted (with all things).”
11.1,

“These are the verses of the Book that is clear.”
12.1 and 27.1.

“A Book whereof the Ayat are explained in detail”
41.3,

“It is He Who sends down manifest Ayat to His servant that He may bring you out from darkness into light.”
57.9.

You said you could send me lengthy posts from scholars as to the meanings of the verse. It just seems to me if the Quran is clear, perfect and explained in detail as Allah says about it then why the need for lengthy posts from scholars.
Reply

Genesis
08-28-2014, 10:08 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Karl
People are just people whatever the religion, and megalomaniacs always rationalize that conquest is the best defence. "The best form of defence is attack". Paranoia and fear, booty and plunder, under the banner of glory and righteousness. It has always been that way since the dawn of civilization. In very ancient times before the concept of property and any form of government and people were few in number, people just shared the land like other animals and there was peace.
Evil infiltrates all forms of order and civilizations.
I think the Quran encourages this confusion.
Reply

InToTheRain
08-28-2014, 12:11 PM
You assume that Isa(AS) would not fight and is a pacifist however nothing is further from the truth. He will return to kill the anti-christ and it will be one of the bloodiest battles of history. Fighting for the Gods cause is nothing new; previous prophets have done so.

Revelations for Muslims to fight arrived 13 years after they were persecuted and after they had their own land. What makes you think Isa(AS) would not have done the same had he the opportunity to do so and had the people not rejected him.

The Muslims were ordered to fight by God; this was no easy task seeing as they were smaller in number, famished from boycotts and ill-equiped for warfare. However Gods command was obeyed and they succeeded against incredible odds.

Allah (SWT) said, 'Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them; those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah. And had there not been Allah's repelling some people by others, certainly there would have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques in which Allah's name is much remembered; and surely Allah will help him who helps His cause; most surely Allah is Strong, Mighty.' (Noble Qur'an, 22:39-40)

format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
Yes you are right. All religions have their militants and the Crudsaders are an example of that. However they were far more removed from the Injil than what Muslims are removed from the Quran. Isa was a pacifist. Mohamad was a warrior. You will not find anything in the Injil to do with making war. The Quran is full of it.
Please read:

Is The Bible More Violent Than The Quran?

Also explain:

Jihad in the Bible

Let us see what the Bible has to say about Jihad in the meaning of war and violence. The following verses are from the Bible, New International Version (NIV), 1984

"Do not allow a sorceress to live. Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal must be put to death. Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed." [Exodus 22:18-20]

"This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' The Levites did as Moses commanded and that day about three thousand of the people died." [Exodus 32:27-28]

"The LORD said to Moses, 'Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. (Moses ordered) "Now kill all the boys. And kill every women who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." [Numbers 31:1-18]
(Jesus said) "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and kill them in front of me." [Luke 19:27]

"He (Jesus) said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." [Luke 22:36]

acquired from link below. Please do read so that we come to a better understanding:
About Jihad - Islam Jihad and Terrorism

regards
Reply

Scimitar
08-28-2014, 04:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset
Ok but what about al-andalus and southern france?
Bro, when we look at history and see the rise of Islam and the impact it had on other nations - we find something very uncanny.

For example, in the case of Spain, notice how Spain was ruled by Visigoths (The Vandals) and you will find several historical sources stating that the Islamic caliphate had not actually targeted Spain for conquest, but that political divisions within the Visigothic kingdom created an opportunity that Tariq and his army exploited successfully. For example, King Roderick was not considered a legitimate ruler by all the inhabitants of the Spanish Kingdom, and some Visigothic nobles actually aided the Islamic conquest. One name frequently mentioned is Count Julian of Ceuta in North Africa (this version calls him a Gothic noble), who according to some stories invited Tariq to invade because his daughter had been raped by King Roderick. Other sources instead consider Count Julian to be the last representative of the Byzantine Empire in North Africa.

It seems that a Visigoth noble had wanted to overthrow the tyrant King of spain, Roderick - and in Islam, it is the duty of any ruler to challenge the oppressor, and to defeat him.

Seems that is exactly what happened.

Conquest.... what an odd word.

Scimi
Reply

Jedi_Mindset
08-28-2014, 06:29 PM
Ah that explains alot, so the muslims were actually invited.
Reply

Ahmad H
08-28-2014, 11:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
Yes you are right. All religions have their militants and the Crudsaders are an example of that. However they were far more removed from the Injil than what Muslims are removed from the Quran. Isa was a pacifist. Mohamad was a warrior. You will not find anything in the Injil to do with making war. The Quran is full of it.
New Testament, Matthew, 10:34-39:

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--
a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'
"Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it."

So, don't Christians take the Bible as the literal Word of God? If so, then wouldn't these verses qualify as being militaristic and showing the warrior attitude of Jesus that allowed Christians to carry out the Crusades as they did? Clearly, they had some justification from the Bible! Namely, from Jesus' words!

format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
You have only partly quoted Tafsir Ibn Kathir . Lets look at what he said again-

“Allah, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. On that, Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, Most High, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah.”
(Ibn Kathir, The Battles of the Prophet, pp. 183-4)

So there you have it - Muhammad received a revelation from God , saying, "If you're worried about money, don't worry, because God's going to enrich you by sending you to fight the People of the Book, until they convert to Islam or pay the Jizya!" According to Ibn KathirThis was about fighting for MONEY !

You say “they too (People of the Book) had been actively hostile to Islam and tried to exterminate it. Muslims were, therefore, ordered to fight them unless they agreed to live as their loyal and peaceful subjects”
Where is your proof of this? According to the Quran 9.28 – 30 and to Ibn Kathir it was the Muslims who launched an offensive Jihad to make money.
You are not wrong to say that Allah ordered Jizya for some compensation to the Muslims. But to say that this was to make money is incorrect. Again, you ignore the fact that Muslims paid the Zakah. The Zakah was a 2.5% surcharge tax which Muslims had to pay. It was for the benefit of the poor and needy.
(Source: Glossary of Islamic Terms (Under Ushr and Zakah, respectively), from vol. 5 of Sunan Abu Dawud, published by Dar-us-Salaam, p. 594 and p. 597, First Edition July 2008)

Now for the Jizya, it was a charge to the Non-Muslims who lived under the Muslim government for protection. The payment was a compensation for their protection, in which they were guaranteed their rights, life, property and practice of their religion, etc. Dhimmis were exempted from the compulsory military duty which was imposed on Muslims to perform for the state. These Dhimmis (protected) had full rights to practice their faith and implement their own religious laws within their communities.
(Source: Glossary of Islamic Terms (Under Dhimmi or Ahludh-Dhimmah), from vol. 5 of Sunan Abu Dawud, published by Dar-us-Salaam, p. 509, First Edition July 2008)

format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
Yes Im aware of the Jizah tax. You say “Thus the latter (People of the Book) in a way fared better” By this you mean the
Dimmis or Zimmis? Well actually over history in much of the Islamic world Zimmis were treated as second class citizens.
Dhimmis did fare better. When you are protected by the same people who you fought, and you are given the ability to pay when you are able to do so, without force, then you are given very good rights. You are protected by the same government which fought you and exempted from having to fight and die for them, while those so-called "first-class" citizens as you distinguished, did fight and die to protect those very same people who them fought before. Yeah, I would say that is pretty good. They gave them full rights.

As for the concept of Jizya, it is not just for this purpose. It has a wider meaning of compensation. "As-Sawi: It is calld jizya because is spares them from being fought and accords them security. Jaza means to compensate for something."
Source: https://bewley.virtualave.net/tawba2.html

The Islamic government would not even force the Dhimmis to pay if they could not do so. This is the injunction of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) which Hazrat Umar Farooq (ra) had also mentioned to the Muslims before he expired on his deathbed. I narrate to you the Hadith in full, with the boldened part at the end the important portion which you are concerned with:

Narrated `Amr bin Maimun Al-Audi:

I saw `Umar bin Al-Khattab (when he was stabbed) saying, "O `Abdullah bin `Umar! Go to the mother of the believers Aisha and say, `Umar bin Al-Khattab sends his greetings to you,' and request her to allow me to be buried with my companions." (So, Ibn `Umar conveyed the message to `Aisha.) She said, "I had the idea of having this place for myself but today I prefer him (`Umar) to myself (and allow him to be buried there)." When `Abdullah bin `Umar returned, `Umar asked him, "What (news) do you have?" He replied, "O chief of the believers! She has allowed you (to be buried there)." On that `Umar said, "Nothing was more important to me than to be buried in that (sacred) place. So, when I expire, carry me there and pay my greetings to her (`Aisha ) and say, `Umar bin Al-Khattab asks permission; and if she gives permission, then bury me (there) and if she does not, then take me to the graveyard of the Muslims. I do not think any person has more right for the caliphate than those with whom Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) (p.b.u.h) was always pleased till his death. And whoever is chosen by the people after me will be the caliph, and you people must listen to him and obey him," and then he mentioned the name of `Uthman, `Ali, Talha, Az-Zubair, `Abdur-Rahman bin `Auf and Sa`d bin Abi Waqqas. By this time a young man from Ansar came and said, "O chief of the believers! Be happy with Allah's glad tidings. The grade which you have in Islam is known to you, then you became the caliph and you ruled with justice and then you have been awarded martyrdom after all this." `Umar replied, "O son of my brother! Would that all that privileges will counterbalance (my short comings), so that I neither lose nor gain anything. I recommend my successor to be good to the early emigrants and realize their rights and to protect their honor and sacred things. And I also recommend him to be good to the Ansar who before them, had homes (in Medina) and had adopted the Faith. He should accept the good of the righteous among them and should excuse their wrongdoers. I recommend him to abide by the rules and regulations concerning the Dhimmis (protectees) of Allah and His Apostle, to fulfill their contracts completely and fight for them and not to tax (overburden) them beyond their capabilities."

(Sahih Bukhari, Book of Funerals, Chapter: The Graves of the Prophet (pbuh), Abu Bakr, and Umar Radiyallahu Anhu, #1392)
Link: Hadith - Book of Funerals (Al-Janaa'iz) - Sahih al-Bukhari - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (??? ???? ???? ? ???)

The Muslims were very much concerned with protecting the rights of the Dhimmis. If one of our Khulafa-e-Rashideen was so concerned with that, to the point of mentioning it before he died, then you have to respect the fact that the Dhimmis are not considered as some low class citizens. I don't care what you pull, this is not something which someone who considers people so lowly would say when he is just about to die after being stabbed by a Dhimmi as well. Hazrat Umar (ra) was stabbed by a Persian man who wanted revenge for the fall of Khusrau. And yet he was concerned with the Dhimmi's rights on his deathbed? If they were so second-class, then in his power surely he would have caused them harm. But this is not the case. Islam teaches compassion.

format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
For example -

Zimmis were not allowed to build new churches, temples, or synagogues. They were allowed to renovate old churches provided they did not allow to add any new construction. Yet, Muslims, if they wish, were permitted to demolish all non-Muslim houses of worship in any land they conquer.
Zimmis were not allowed to pray or read their sacred books out loud at home or in churches, in case Muslims hear their prayers.
Zimmis were not allowed to print their religious books or sell them in public places and markets.
Zimmis were not allowed to install the cross on their houses or churches.
Zimmis were not allowed to congregate in the streets during their religious festivals; rather, each must quietly make his way to his church or temple.
A Muslim male can marry a Zimmi girl, but a Zimmi man is not allowed to marry a Muslim girl.Zimmis cannot testify against Muslims. They can only testify against other Zimmis . Their oaths are not considered valid in an Islamic court.
So how do Zimmis fare better when they are second class citizens?
As for the religious rights, the explanation in the book sourced above, Volume 5 of Sunan Abu Dawud, said it clearly. They had full rights.

The Holy Prophet (saw) was the one who set the example for how to treat Dhimmis. We Muslims do not need anyone else to show us the truth of Islam better than him. I don't care what your source is for your information, and what you might think happened in Islamic history. Definitely, some time after the Holy Prophet (saw) the values of Islam started to decay and Dhimmis did get treated unfairly. But the teachings of Islam are clear on what Muslims are SUPPOSED to do.

As for the Islamic treatment of Christians, you have only to read what the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) wrote to the Cathedral of St. Catharines:

[BEGIN QUOTE]

  1. Muhammad the son of ‘Abd Allah, the Messenger of Allah, and careful guardian of the whole world; has wrote the present instrument to all those who are in his national people, and of his own religion, as a secure and positive promise to be accomplished to the Christian nation, and relations of the Nazarene, whosoever they may be, whether they be the noble or the vulgar, the honorable or otherwise, saying thus.I. Whosoever of my nation shall presume to break my promise and oath, which is contained in this present agreement, destroys the promise of God, acts contrary to the oath, and will be a resister of the faith, (which God forbid) for he becomes worthy of the curse, whether he be the King himself, or a poor man, or whatever person he may be.
  2. That whenever any of the monks in his travels shall happen to settle upon any mountain, hill, village, or other habitable place, on the sea, or in deserts, or in any convent, church, or house of prayer, I shall be in the midst of them, as the preserver and protector of them, their goods and effects, with my soul, aid, and protection, jointly with all my national people; because they are a part of my own people, and an honor to me.
  3. Moreover, I command all officers not to require any poll-tax on them, or any other tribute, because they shall not be forced or compelled to anything of this kind.
  4. None shall presume to change their judges or governors, but they shall remain in their office, without being deported.
  5. No one shall molest them when they are travelling on the road.
  6. Whatever churches they are possessed of, no one is to deprive them of them.
  7. Whosoever shall annul any of one of these my decrees, let him know positively that he annuls the ordinance of God.
  8. Moreover, neither their judges, governors, monks, servants, disciples, or any others depending on them, shall pay any poll-tax, or be molested on that account, because I am their protector, wherever they shall be, either by land or sea, east or west, north or south; because both they and all that belong to them are included in this my promissory oath and patent.
  9. And of those that live quietly and solitary upon the mountains, they shall exact neither poll-tax nor tithes from their incomes, neither shall any Muslim partake of what they have; for they labor only to maintain themselves.
  10. Whenever the crop of the earth shall be plentiful in its due time, the inhabitants shall be obliged out of every bushel to give them a certain measure.
  11. Neither in time of war shall they take them out of their habitations, nor compel them to go to the wars, nor even then shall they require of them any poll-tax.
  12. In these eleven chapters is to be found whatever relates to the monks, as to the remaining seven chapters, they direct what relates to every Christian.
  13. Those Christians who are inhabitants, and with their riches and traffic are able to pay the poll-tax, shall pay no more than twelve drachms.
  14. Excepting this, nothing shall be required of them, according to the express order of God, that says, ‘Do not molest those that have a veneration for the books that are sent from God, but rather in a kind manner give of your good things to them, and converse with them, and hinder everyone from molesting them’ [29:46].
  15. If a Christian woman shall happen to marry a Muslim man, the Muslim shall not cross the inclination of his wife, to keep her from her church and prayers, and the practice of her religion.
  16. That no person hinder them from repairing their churches.
  17. Whosoever acts contrary to my grant, or gives credit to anything contrary to it, becomes truly an apostate to God, and to his divine apostle, because this protection I have granted to them according to this promise.
  18. No one shall bear arms against them, but, on the contrary, the Muslims shall wage war for them.
  19. And by this I ordain, that none of my nation shall presume to do or act contrary to this my promise, until the end of the world.

[END QUOTE]

The Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had a delegation of the Christian tribe of Najran come to him where they visited him in Medina to exchange views with him on religious matters. It had several dignitaries. The conversation was held in the mosque for several hours. When the leader asked to depart from the mosque to go and hold a religious service at a convenient spot, the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said to them that there was no need for them to go out of the mosque, since they could also use the consecrated place of worship as well and hold their service in it.
(Source: Zurqani, Sharh Mawahib al-Ladunniyya, Vol. 5, pp. 186-187; Zad al-Ma'ad, Vol. 2, pp. 35-36)

The verses of the Holy Qur'an are clear about why Jihad was to be fought as well. Allah specifically told the Muslims to protect the houses of Allah:

22:39 To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid;-
22:40 (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, "our Lord is Allah". Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily Allah is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).

So how are Muslims allowed to demolish the houses in which Allah is worshiped, as Allah Himself states? Indeed, the Qur'an is clear on matters. It is not for you to distort things here.

format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
You said you could send me lengthy posts from scholars as to the meanings of the verse. It just seems to me if the Quran is clear, perfect and explained in detail as Allah says about it then why the need for lengthy posts from scholars.
And so, why did you not consider the Holy Qur'an before you made such a silly assumption, as if Allah commanded us to destroy churches and synogogues if we Muslims wished, while jihad was enacted for the SPECIFIC purpose of protecting them? Clearly, you have no knowledge of the Qur'an, and so you are not fit to tell me what is right and wrong about it.

And it is clear to me that your agenda is to distort things and not discuss them here. That is why you are trying to impose your views here as if you understand these matters, while you know nothing of the Qur'an. Despite you mentioning how clear the Qur'an is, you can't understand the phrase, "Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure." which is specifically aimed at the protection of these places of worship, and not pulling them down.

Again, you failed to point out that Muslims grant no rights to Christians and their services of worship, as per the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) words. He gave his statement about the protection of Christian rights "until the end of the world" in his statements to the Cathedral of St. Catharines. So again, please tell me what proof do you have that Muslims treat Dhimmis badly? just what source do you pull this from? What statements of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) are you trying to use as proof? Just statements out of the blue? Sources needed...
Reply

Ahmad H
08-29-2014, 12:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
You ask Also why isn't Muhammad asking for Jizyah in the letter you quoted? The letter you quoted was to the Persian king. He was not one of the People of the Book.
Wrong. There is a whole chapter in Sunan Abu Dawud which is in "The Book of Kharaj, Fai', and 'Imarah", with a chapter titled "Levying Jizyah on the Zoroastrians". In it a Hadith states:

It was reported from Abu Jamrah, from Ibn 'Abbas that he said: "When the Prophet of the people of Persia died, Iblis misled them to Zoroastrianism." (Hasan)
(Hadith #3042)
[Comments: This statement of Ibn 'Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, is an indication of why it was allowed to treat them as people of the Book when it comes to Jizyah, while not in the case of marriage and food.]
(Dar-us-Salaam translation of Sunan Abu Dawud, Volume 3)
Reply

Ahmad H
08-29-2014, 12:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
Zimmis cannot testify against Muslims. They can only testify against other Zimmis . Their oaths are not considered valid in an Islamic court.
I didn't respond to this, did I? You are wrong again, Genesis. How is the oath of a Dhimmi invalid under Islamic law? What proof do you have? Under the chapter in “The Book of Judgments” in Sunan Abu Dawud, the Daru-us-Salaam English translation writes for narration #3621 under the chapter titled, “If the Defendant is a Dhimmi, should he swear an oath?”

It was narrated that Al-Ash’ath said: “There was some land that was jointly owned by myself and a Jewish man, and he denied me my rights. I brought him to the Prophet (saw), and the Prophet (saw) said to me: ‘Do you have any proof?’ I said: ‘No.’ He said to the Jew: ‘Swear an oath.’ I said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, then he will swear an oath and take away my property.’ Then Allah revealed ‘Verily, those who purchase a small gain at the cost of Allah’s Covenant…’ until the end of the Verse.” [3:77] (Sahih)
[Comments: If the dispute arises with some non-Muslims, he would be asked to swear by Allah, and if he gives a false oath in the Name of Allah, the Muslim claimant would bear the loss with patience and leave the matter with Allah.]

Question to you: What proof do you have to the contrary to Allah’s Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) that the oath of a Dhimmi is invalid, if even his oath which may be a lie is not even given suspicion but believed and taken as a proper oath?
Reply

Genesis
08-31-2014, 05:10 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by InToTheRain
You assume that Isa(AS) would not fight and is a pacifist however nothing is further from the truth. He will return to kill the anti-christ and it will be one of the bloodiest battles of history. Fighting for the Gods cause is nothing new; previous prophets have done so.

Revelations for Muslims to fight arrived 13 years after they were persecuted and after they had their own land. What makes you think Isa(AS) would not have done the same had he the opportunity to do so and had the people not rejected him.

The Muslims were ordered to fight by God; this was no easy task seeing as they were smaller in number, famished from boycotts and ill-equiped for warfare. However Gods command was obeyed and they succeeded against incredible odds.

Allah (SWT) said, 'Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them; those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah. And had there not been Allah's repelling some people by others, certainly there would have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques in which Allah's name is much remembered; and surely Allah will help him who helps His cause; most surely Allah is Strong, Mighty.' (Noble Qur'an, 22:39-40)



Please read:

Is The Bible More Violent Than The Quran?

Also explain:

Jihad in the Bible

Let us see what the Bible has to say about Jihad in the meaning of war and violence. The following verses are from the Bible, New International Version (NIV), 1984

"Do not allow a sorceress to live. Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal must be put to death. Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed." [Exodus 22:18-20]

"This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' The Levites did as Moses commanded and that day about three thousand of the people died." [Exodus 32:27-28]

"The LORD said to Moses, 'Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. (Moses ordered) "Now kill all the boys. And kill every women who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." [Numbers 31:1-18]
(Jesus said) "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and kill them in front of me." [Luke 19:27]

"He (Jesus) said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." [Luke 22:36]

acquired from link below. Please do read so that we come to a better understanding:
About Jihad - Islam Jihad and Terrorism

regards
Greetings Intotherain.
You say Jesus was not a pacifist and will return to kill the anti-Christ . Jesus while on earth never advocated violence. You are correct as to how he will come at the end times. But you are stretching this too far by using this to justify Jihad. We are talking about how God wants us, as people, to relate to other people. This discussion is not about the end times. It is about how we are told to treat others now. Jesus was a pacifist.
You ask what makes me think Isa would not have done the same? Remember - Jesus was persecuted by the religious authorities and eventually crucified. He said “But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”
Mathew 5.39.

And when the soldiers came for him his followers considered armed resistance. But Jesus said - “Put away your sword, Jesus told him. Those who use the sword will die by the sword.”
Mathew 26.52.

In regards to the first link and verses you quoted, most of these verses are Old Covenant. You and the author confuse the Old Covenant of Moses with the New Covenant of Christ Jesus The Messiah. The New Covenant fulfills and abrogates the Old Covenant. The prophet Jeremiah prophesied about the New Covenant to come when he says.
“ But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, says the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jeremiah 31:33.

This prophesy was brought to fulfillment by Jesus when -
Jesus took the cup of wine and said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”
(Luke 22:20).

The link says violence in the Quran is largely a defense against attack by the standards of the 7th Century. So is the Quran only for the 7th Century then. Is it not the absolute timeless book for all people at all times?
Also as I’ve been saying Surah 2.29 is obviously not about self defense. As well as that the “Rightly Guided Caliphs” were expansionist and imperialist. They initiated offensive warfare.
The link also mentions the wars between Protestants and Catholics. These wars were political and cultural. As I’ve already demonstrated, you will not find anything in the New Covenant Injil that justifies warfare. The Quran is different. It has many passages that people rightly or wrongly use to justify war.

You quote two New Covenant verses - Luke 19:27 and Luke 22:36. If you read Luke 19.27 properly you will see it is a parable. An allegory. This is not Jesus saying to have enemies killed in front of him. If you read it in context from verse 12 you will see it is about receiving rewards and punishments after death.
Similar to Luke 22.36. If you read it properly you will see it was merely a symbolic act so as to fulfill the prophesy from
Isaiah 53.12 that he would be countered as a transgressor. This has nothing to do with armed Jihad.

In regards to the second link I’ve heard most of this before. There is nothing in this that is contributing to the discussion of
Surah 9.29 and as mentioned it concentrates again on Old Covenant scriptures and the two from Luke that you quoted which I’ve already replied to.

Peace to you Intotherain.
Reply

Genesis
08-31-2014, 05:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmad H
New Testament, Matthew, 10:34-39:

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--
a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'
"Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it."

So, don't Christians take the Bible as the literal Word of God? If so, then wouldn't these verses qualify as being militaristic and showing the warrior attitude of Jesus that allowed Christians to carry out the Crusades as they did? Clearly, they had some justification from the Bible! Namely, from Jesus' words!



You are not wrong to say that Allah ordered Jizya for some compensation to the Muslims. But to say that this was to make money is incorrect. Again, you ignore the fact that Muslims paid the Zakah. The Zakah was a 2.5% surcharge tax which Muslims had to pay. It was for the benefit of the poor and needy.
(Source: Glossary of Islamic Terms (Under Ushr and Zakah, respectively), from vol. 5 of Sunan Abu Dawud, published by Dar-us-Salaam, p. 594 and p. 597, First Edition July 2008)

Now for the Jizya, it was a charge to the Non-Muslims who lived under the Muslim government for protection. The payment was a compensation for their protection, in which they were guaranteed their rights, life, property and practice of their religion, etc. Dhimmis were exempted from the compulsory military duty which was imposed on Muslims to perform for the state. These Dhimmis (protected) had full rights to practice their faith and implement their own religious laws within their communities.
(Source: Glossary of Islamic Terms (Under Dhimmi or Ahludh-Dhimmah), from vol. 5 of Sunan Abu Dawud, published by Dar-us-Salaam, p. 509, First Edition July 2008)



Dhimmis did fare better. When you are protected by the same people who you fought, and you are given the ability to pay when you are able to do so, without force, then you are given very good rights. You are protected by the same government which fought you and exempted from having to fight and die for them, while those so-called "first-class" citizens as you distinguished, did fight and die to protect those very same people who them fought before. Yeah, I would say that is pretty good. They gave them full rights.

As for the concept of Jizya, it is not just for this purpose. It has a wider meaning of compensation. "As-Sawi: It is calld jizya because is spares them from being fought and accords them security. Jaza means to compensate for something."
Source: https://bewley.virtualave.net/tawba2.html

The Islamic government would not even force the Dhimmis to pay if they could not do so. This is the injunction of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) which Hazrat Umar Farooq (ra) had also mentioned to the Muslims before he expired on his deathbed. I narrate to you the Hadith in full, with the boldened part at the end the important portion which you are concerned with:

Narrated `Amr bin Maimun Al-Audi:

I saw `Umar bin Al-Khattab (when he was stabbed) saying, "O `Abdullah bin `Umar! Go to the mother of the believers Aisha and say, `Umar bin Al-Khattab sends his greetings to you,' and request her to allow me to be buried with my companions." (So, Ibn `Umar conveyed the message to `Aisha.) She said, "I had the idea of having this place for myself but today I prefer him (`Umar) to myself (and allow him to be buried there)." When `Abdullah bin `Umar returned, `Umar asked him, "What (news) do you have?" He replied, "O chief of the believers! She has allowed you (to be buried there)." On that `Umar said, "Nothing was more important to me than to be buried in that (sacred) place. So, when I expire, carry me there and pay my greetings to her (`Aisha ) and say, `Umar bin Al-Khattab asks permission; and if she gives permission, then bury me (there) and if she does not, then take me to the graveyard of the Muslims. I do not think any person has more right for the caliphate than those with whom Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) (p.b.u.h) was always pleased till his death. And whoever is chosen by the people after me will be the caliph, and you people must listen to him and obey him," and then he mentioned the name of `Uthman, `Ali, Talha, Az-Zubair, `Abdur-Rahman bin `Auf and Sa`d bin Abi Waqqas. By this time a young man from Ansar came and said, "O chief of the believers! Be happy with Allah's glad tidings. The grade which you have in Islam is known to you, then you became the caliph and you ruled with justice and then you have been awarded martyrdom after all this." `Umar replied, "O son of my brother! Would that all that privileges will counterbalance (my short comings), so that I neither lose nor gain anything. I recommend my successor to be good to the early emigrants and realize their rights and to protect their honor and sacred things. And I also recommend him to be good to the Ansar who before them, had homes (in Medina) and had adopted the Faith. He should accept the good of the righteous among them and should excuse their wrongdoers. I recommend him to abide by the rules and regulations concerning the Dhimmis (protectees) of Allah and His Apostle, to fulfill their contracts completely and fight for them and not to tax (overburden) them beyond their capabilities."

(Sahih Bukhari, Book of Funerals, Chapter: The Graves of the Prophet (pbuh), Abu Bakr, and Umar Radiyallahu Anhu, #1392)
Link: Hadith - Book of Funerals (Al-Janaa'iz) - Sahih al-Bukhari - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (??? ???? ???? ? ???)

The Muslims were very much concerned with protecting the rights of the Dhimmis. If one of our Khulafa-e-Rashideen was so concerned with that, to the point of mentioning it before he died, then you have to respect the fact that the Dhimmis are not considered as some low class citizens. I don't care what you pull, this is not something which someone who considers people so lowly would say when he is just about to die after being stabbed by a Dhimmi as well. Hazrat Umar (ra) was stabbed by a Persian man who wanted revenge for the fall of Khusrau. And yet he was concerned with the Dhimmi's rights on his deathbed? If they were so second-class, then in his power surely he would have caused them harm. But this is not the case. Islam teaches compassion.



As for the religious rights, the explanation in the book sourced above, Volume 5 of Sunan Abu Dawud, said it clearly. They had full rights.

The Holy Prophet (saw) was the one who set the example for how to treat Dhimmis. We Muslims do not need anyone else to show us the truth of Islam better than him. I don't care what your source is for your information, and what you might think happened in Islamic history. Definitely, some time after the Holy Prophet (saw) the values of Islam started to decay and Dhimmis did get treated unfairly. But the teachings of Islam are clear on what Muslims are SUPPOSED to do.

As for the Islamic treatment of Christians, you have only to read what the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) wrote to the Cathedral of St. Catharines:

[BEGIN QUOTE]

  1. Muhammad the son of ‘Abd Allah, the Messenger of Allah, and careful guardian of the whole world; has wrote the present instrument to all those who are in his national people, and of his own religion, as a secure and positive promise to be accomplished to the Christian nation, and relations of the Nazarene, whosoever they may be, whether they be the noble or the vulgar, the honorable or otherwise, saying thus.I. Whosoever of my nation shall presume to break my promise and oath, which is contained in this present agreement, destroys the promise of God, acts contrary to the oath, and will be a resister of the faith, (which God forbid) for he becomes worthy of the curse, whether he be the King himself, or a poor man, or whatever person he may be.
  2. That whenever any of the monks in his travels shall happen to settle upon any mountain, hill, village, or other habitable place, on the sea, or in deserts, or in any convent, church, or house of prayer, I shall be in the midst of them, as the preserver and protector of them, their goods and effects, with my soul, aid, and protection, jointly with all my national people; because they are a part of my own people, and an honor to me.
  3. Moreover, I command all officers not to require any poll-tax on them, or any other tribute, because they shall not be forced or compelled to anything of this kind.
  4. None shall presume to change their judges or governors, but they shall remain in their office, without being deported.
  5. No one shall molest them when they are travelling on the road.
  6. Whatever churches they are possessed of, no one is to deprive them of them.
  7. Whosoever shall annul any of one of these my decrees, let him know positively that he annuls the ordinance of God.
  8. Moreover, neither their judges, governors, monks, servants, disciples, or any others depending on them, shall pay any poll-tax, or be molested on that account, because I am their protector, wherever they shall be, either by land or sea, east or west, north or south; because both they and all that belong to them are included in this my promissory oath and patent.
  9. And of those that live quietly and solitary upon the mountains, they shall exact neither poll-tax nor tithes from their incomes, neither shall any Muslim partake of what they have; for they labor only to maintain themselves.
  10. Whenever the crop of the earth shall be plentiful in its due time, the inhabitants shall be obliged out of every bushel to give them a certain measure.
  11. Neither in time of war shall they take them out of their habitations, nor compel them to go to the wars, nor even then shall they require of them any poll-tax.
  12. In these eleven chapters is to be found whatever relates to the monks, as to the remaining seven chapters, they direct what relates to every Christian.
  13. Those Christians who are inhabitants, and with their riches and traffic are able to pay the poll-tax, shall pay no more than twelve drachms.
  14. Excepting this, nothing shall be required of them, according to the express order of God, that says, ‘Do not molest those that have a veneration for the books that are sent from God, but rather in a kind manner give of your good things to them, and converse with them, and hinder everyone from molesting them’ [29:46].
  15. If a Christian woman shall happen to marry a Muslim man, the Muslim shall not cross the inclination of his wife, to keep her from her church and prayers, and the practice of her religion.
  16. That no person hinder them from repairing their churches.
  17. Whosoever acts contrary to my grant, or gives credit to anything contrary to it, becomes truly an apostate to God, and to his divine apostle, because this protection I have granted to them according to this promise.
  18. No one shall bear arms against them, but, on the contrary, the Muslims shall wage war for them.
  19. And by this I ordain, that none of my nation shall presume to do or act contrary to this my promise, until the end of the world.

[END QUOTE]

The Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had a delegation of the Christian tribe of Najran come to him where they visited him in Medina to exchange views with him on religious matters. It had several dignitaries. The conversation was held in the mosque for several hours. When the leader asked to depart from the mosque to go and hold a religious service at a convenient spot, the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said to them that there was no need for them to go out of the mosque, since they could also use the consecrated place of worship as well and hold their service in it.
(Source: Zurqani, Sharh Mawahib al-Ladunniyya, Vol. 5, pp. 186-187; Zad al-Ma'ad, Vol. 2, pp. 35-36)

The verses of the Holy Qur'an are clear about why Jihad was to be fought as well. Allah specifically told the Muslims to protect the houses of Allah:

22:39 To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid;-
22:40 (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, "our Lord is Allah". Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily Allah is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).

So how are Muslims allowed to demolish the houses in which Allah is worshiped, as Allah Himself states? Indeed, the Qur'an is clear on matters. It is not for you to distort things here.



And so, why did you not consider the Holy Qur'an before you made such a silly assumption, as if Allah commanded us to destroy churches and synogogues if we Muslims wished, while jihad was enacted for the SPECIFIC purpose of protecting them? Clearly, you have no knowledge of the Qur'an, and so you are not fit to tell me what is right and wrong about it.

And it is clear to me that your agenda is to distort things and not discuss them here. That is why you are trying to impose your views here as if you understand these matters, while you know nothing of the Qur'an. Despite you mentioning how clear the Qur'an is, you can't understand the phrase, "Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure." which is specifically aimed at the protection of these places of worship, and not pulling them down.

Again, you failed to point out that Muslims grant no rights to Christians and their services of worship, as per the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) words. He gave his statement about the protection of Christian rights "until the end of the world" in his statements to the Cathedral of St. Catharines. So again, please tell me what proof do you have that Muslims treat Dhimmis badly? just what source do you pull this from? What statements of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) are you trying to use as proof? Just statements out of the blue? Sources needed...
Regarding your quote of Matthew, 10:34-39. This is not about armed Jihad. It is about how Christians loyalties should be to God first and family second.
You ask- don't Christians take the Bible as the literal Word of God? No. They don’t. For Christians the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Meaning it is written by men who are inspired by God. That is why any difficulties you find in the Bible are easier to explain with historical arguments. This is unlike the Quran which has a lot more trouble for Muslims to explain away its problems.

Your explanation ignores Surah 9.29 and Ibn Kathir which are quite clear the Jizya were for compensation for loss of earnings from pagans being banned from the Kaaba.

You say “whenyou are protected by the same people who you fought, and you are given the ability to pay” – well this sounds like gangster behavior. Or Mafia. I wonder why Muslims didn’t want conquered Christians and Jews fighting in their army? Maybe they feared having armed and trained conquered people in their army who hadn’t been Islamized? Also who were they being “protected” from? From their Roman Christian brothers and liberators of course.

Which Islamic Government are you talking about when you say they did not force the Dhimmis to pay the Jizya ? Over the course of Muslim history treatment of Dhimmis has differed, and it is a fact, at times has been abusive.

You say you don't care what my information is and what I might think happened in Islamic history, but you admit that after Mohammad the values of Islam decayed and Dhimmis were treated unfairly. You then say the teachings of Islam are clear on how Muslims are to treat Dhimmi. The thing is I’m not talking about the Quran or Hadith here Ahmad. Its Muslim history that I’m talking about, and there were abuses of Dhimmi. There is no excuse for this and Muslims need to take responsibility for it.

You mentioned Mohammad’s dealings with the Najiran. You do realize that the Najiran Christians were later expelled from the Arabian peninsular by the Muslims?

You mention other verses in the Quran (22.39 and 40) about Jihad. I notice you have avoided further discussion on Surah 9.29 which are later verses and abrogate the earlier. You have failed to mention Ibn Kathirs opinion on it. I’m also talking about Muslim history here. There is no distortion. They are historical facts.

It is clear your agenda is to ignore the facts of expansionist, imperialist Muslim history. You ignore Surah 9.29 and Ibn Kathirs opinion on it. Your point about protecting churches and synagogues is hardly relevant. Whether Mohammad left churches and synagogues alone, so what? My point is about extortion not destruction.

You say I make statements out of the blue and sources are needed. Historical sources in the 12th Century cite Michael the Syrian (patriarch of Syria) describing the oath of Dhimmi having no standing in Muslim courts and he attributes this to Umar the Second. Later under the Ottomans the Consul de Aruiex testifies to the same thing under the Turks and The British Consul to Bosnia Edward Freeman as saying the same thing in 1877 in the city of Travnick.
The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude: Seventh-Twentieth Century- Author Bat Ye'or.




Reply

Genesis
08-31-2014, 05:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmad H
Wrong. There is a whole chapter in Sunan Abu Dawud which is in "The Book of Kharaj, Fai', and 'Imarah", with a chapter titled "Levying Jizyah on the Zoroastrians". In it a Hadith states:

It was reported from Abu Jamrah, from Ibn 'Abbas that he said: "When the Prophet of the people of Persia died, Iblis misled them to Zoroastrianism." (Hasan)
(Hadith #3042)
[Comments: This statement of Ibn 'Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, is an indication of why it was allowed to treat them as people of the Book when it comes to Jizyah, while not in the case of marriage and food.]
(Dar-us-Salaam translation of Sunan Abu Dawud, Volume 3)
The definition of Dimmi appears to change over the course of Muslim expansion and history. It seems it even included Hindus when the Muslim armies invaded India.
So any way, what was your point in asking why isn't Muhammad asking for Jizyah in the letter to the Persian King?
Reply

Genesis
08-31-2014, 05:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmad H
I didn't respond to this, did I? You are wrong again, Genesis. How is the oath of a Dhimmi invalid under Islamic law? What proof do you have? Under the chapter in “The Book of Judgments” in Sunan Abu Dawud, the Daru-us-Salaam English translation writes for narration #3621 under the chapter titled, “If the Defendant is a Dhimmi, should he swear an oath?”

It was narrated that Al-Ash’ath said: “There was some land that was jointly owned by myself and a Jewish man, and he denied me my rights. I brought him to the Prophet (saw), and the Prophet (saw) said to me: ‘Do you have any proof?’ I said: ‘No.’ He said to the Jew: ‘Swear an oath.’ I said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, then he will swear an oath and take away my property.’ Then Allah revealed ‘Verily, those who purchase a small gain at the cost of Allah’s Covenant…’ until the end of the Verse.” [3:77] (Sahih)
[Comments: If the dispute arises with some non-Muslims, he would be asked to swear by Allah, and if he gives a false oath in the Name of Allah, the Muslim claimant would bear the loss with patience and leave the matter with Allah.]

Question to you: What proof do you have to the contrary to Allah’s Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) that the oath of a Dhimmi is invalid, if even his oath which may be a lie is not even given suspicion but believed and taken as a proper oath?
Historical sources in the 12th Century cite Michael the Syrian (patriarch of Syria) describing the oath of Dhimmi having no standing in Muslim courts and he attributes this to Umar the second. Later under the Ottomans the Consul de Aruiex testifies to the same thing under the Turks and The British Consul to Bosnia Edward Freeman as saying the same thing in 1877 in the city of Travnick.
The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude: Seventh-Twentieth Century-Author Bat Ye'or.
Reply

Genesis
08-31-2014, 05:30 AM
How is it explained that over the course of Muslim military conquests they were always defensive wars? This is illogical. Boarders don't expand with defensive actions.
Reply

Scimitar
08-31-2014, 06:14 AM
That's a rather dim witted question, I can ask you the same for Christianity - what would you answer?

See, when the tables are turned and fingers point towards you - you have to take a deep breath and silently wish you never posed such a question Mr Genesis ;)

But to humour you, Yes, borders do expand with defensive action - please explain to me how Indonesia, or Malaysia, or Africa were "Islamized" as they say?

No army went there... so here is one easy way to prove your question to be ill thought out. A short lesson in Islamic history would do you well here.

Scimi
Reply

syed_z
08-31-2014, 12:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
So any way, what was your point in asking why isn't Muhammad asking for Jizyah in the letter to the Persian King?
Hello Again... Its actually I who asked you if Muhammad (saw) was threatening the Persian King then he should've asked him for Jizyah, why didn't he?

Obviously rhetorical question was to make you realize that the Symbol of Islam, the Prophet himself never threatened the King to either Submit, Get killed or Pay Jizyah, he was only delivering the Message and Warning him of the Day of Judgment, which a Messenger of God is supposed to.
Reply

Ahmad H
08-31-2014, 01:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
Historical sources in the 12th Century cite Michael the Syrian (patriarch of Syria) describing the oath of Dhimmi having no standing in Muslim courts and he attributes this to Umar the second. Later under the Ottomans the Consul de Aruiex testifies to the same thing under the Turks and The British Consul to Bosnia Edward Freeman as saying the same thing in 1877 in the city of Travnick.
The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude: Seventh-Twentieth Century-Author Bat Ye'or.
Where is your proof? I do not see verses of the Holy Qur'an, I do not see Ahadith, I do not see biographies, I do not see statements of the Holy Prophet (saw) to Dhimmis and the Caliphs' statements to them.

This is not proof. I want primary source information. Tell me what you think Allah and His Messenger (saw) said about Dhimmis. 12th century sources are not from the beginning of Islam. Give me 7th century sources. That is a huge gap in time there.
Reply

Ahmad H
08-31-2014, 01:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
How is it explained that over the course of Muslim military conquests they were always defensive wars? This is illogical. Boarders don't expand with defensive actions.
2:190 Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
2:191 And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
2:192 But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
2:193 And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.
2:194 The prohibited month for the prohibited month,- and so for all things prohibited,- there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, Transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.

22:39 To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid;-
22:40 (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, "our Lord is Allah". Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily Allah is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).
22:41 (They are) those who, if We establish them in the land, establish regular prayer and give regular charity, enjoin the right and forbid wrong: with Allah rests the end (and decision) of (all) affairs.

The Qur’an clearly commands not to raise the sword in order to spread Islam and that the innate qualities of the religion should be presented and that others should be attracted through pious models. Do not think that in the early days of Islam use of the sword was commanded, because the sword was never wielded to spread religion. Quite the contrary, it was drawn in self-defence against enemy attacks or in order to establish peace. Compulsion in faith was never the objective.
Reply

Ahmad H
08-31-2014, 01:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
The definition of Dimmi appears to change over the course of Muslim expansion and history. It seems it even included Hindus when the Muslim armies invaded India.
So any way, what was your point in asking why isn't Muhammad asking for Jizyah in the letter to the Persian King?
Dhimmi means protected people. Are you asking me this question?
Reply

Karl
08-31-2014, 11:02 PM
@Genesis it looks like your argument has failed. All that you have exposed to the readers is that Jews, Christians and Muslims have a very violent history and are far from pacifist. Maybe if you were a Jain that couldn't hurt a fly your argument would be better. But it seems it's just the pot calling the kettle black here. How many atrocities under the names of gods have their been? But under the name of a specific God, does that make the atrocities any less?
What about these two Christian atrocities, the Franks were fighting the Muslims during the Crusades and ran out of food so they hacked up Muslims and roasted them for dinner. In the 19th Century, Christian British did a deal with the Maoris transporting them to the Chatham Islands so they could massacre and eat the local people there. How many atrocities from all sides have not been recorded?
Reply

OmAbdullah
09-01-2014, 08:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
Hello Ahmad
You are admitting the reason for the aggression of the early Caliphates was to spread Islam! But you then go on to quote verses in the Quran about defence. Verse 9.29 is not defensive though. It is offensive - aggressive. You say the Byzantines and Persians may have potentially invaded the Muslim lands. But it was Mohammad that wrote them threatening letters in the first place. And we don't know if they would have invaded them or not because the Muslims invaded them. This is ISIS type behaviour.
The Final Prophet Muhammad (Blessings and Peace of Allah be on him) had sent some of his companions to convey the message of Islam peacefully. The Christians living in the colonies under the Persian government killed those peaceful companions! So the Prophet (Blessings and peace of Allah be on him) wrote a letter to the government of Faras to come out for jihad on a particular date. The Prophet (Blessings and Peace of Allah be on him) reached the boarder of Faras with 30000 fighters on that particular date but he did not find the Persian forces to face him. That means that the Persians didn't come to fight. The Prophet(Blessings and Peace of Allah be on him) didn't invade Persia, he fixed tents on the boarder and stayed their for some days. The Christian colonies came under the Islamic Rule and the area became safe for the Muslims to go around for preaching. This is the true story of Persia. As for the Byzantines, there also was a just reason. As Muhammad (Blessings and Peace of Allah be on him) was a true Prophet of All Mighty God nothing unjust or aggressive was expected from him and he never did anything wrong against any nation. His laws were against invading a country. So much so that after him when Umar Bin Al Khitaab became the second Caliph, he came to know that Khalid bin Al waleed during a jihad entered a country. Caliph Umar urgently sent the command that Khalid Bin Al Waleed must step down from the Commander in chief post and Obaidullah must take his place. His command was obeyed and Obaidullah became the Commander in Chief.
Reply

Tayyip
09-02-2014, 04:26 AM
I don't believe ISIS is the bad organization the media lets them out to be, whenever they show ISIS they always show the violence they do what about the violence countless other people do? why not show the same violent images acted out by American soldiers killing countless innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan? Media is showing bad things about ISIS on purpose to make image of Islam bad. Let me tell you this, if you are actually in Syria then you will know what is really going on in there but if you are NOT in Syria then you have no right to claim anything on who is bad or good. - Except for Assad we all know he is bad.
Reply

daveyats
09-02-2014, 08:09 AM
Tayyip its not the media who is showing the violence. The ISIS members themselves are showing off their violence on twitter! The Australian PM is right about ISIS being worse then Nazis. The Nazis did atrocities but at least they tried to hide it because they know its shameful. These guys are showing off severed heads and decapitations to the world.
Reply

ardianto
09-02-2014, 09:28 AM
War in Syria in Iraq is really brutal war which all involved parties (not only ISIS) commit brutality although in various level. However, ISIS is known as group that intentionally showing off their brutality as 'shock therapy' to scare their enemies.

Yes, the world know ISIS brutality from ISIS themselves.
Reply

InToTheRain
09-02-2014, 11:19 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
Greetings Intotherain.
You say Jesus was not a pacifist and will return to kill the anti-Christ . Jesus while on earth never advocated violence. You are correct as to how he will come at the end times. But you are stretching this too far by using this to justify Jihad. We are talking about how God wants us, as people, to relate to other people. This discussion is not about the end times. It is about how we are told to treat others now. Jesus was a pacifist.
Greetings to you too Genesis :)

The war with Dajjal/anti-christ is an event that occurs before the end of time and not something that occurs during the end of time. The end of time is a day of terror and something that the believers will not be subjected to. On that day the Angel Israfil(AS) will blow his trumpet 3 times. The first time it is blown will strike terror into the hearts of desbelievers and there will be much panic; it is a day of unimaginable terror.

Al-Qari'ah (the striking Hour i.e. the Day of Resurrection), What is the striking (Hour)? And what will make you know what the striking (Hour) is? It is a Day whereon mankind will be like moths scattered about, And the mountains will be like carded wool,
(Al-Qari'ah 101:1-5)

O mankind! Fear your Lord and be dutiful to Him! Verily, the earthquake of the Hour (of Judgement) is a terrible thing.
(Al-Hajj 22:1)


So Isa(AS) fights not because it is the end of time but because the criterion has been met to fight. Until the arrival of Isa(AS) his army will be led by Imam Mahdi(RA); a descendant of Mohammad(SAW). Isa(AS) will not come as a Massenger but as a Prophet and a follower of Mohammad(SAW). After the war there will be a period of peace and he will marry as due to the circumstances of his previous time on earth wasn't ideal of him to do such things. There will be such peace that even the wolves will play with lambs. However after the death of Isa(AS) mankind will again face trials and tribulations until it reaches the state where people not know anything of religion except that they remember their parents saying "Allah". After all the believers die the trumpet will be blown. Our scholars have written many books on these issues.

Point I am trying to make is:

1) Isa(AS) does not fight because it is the end of time but rather because his situation and circumstance permits it.
2) even after the war with the anti-christ there will be a period of time before the end of time signified by the blowing of the trumpet. End of time will not begin with the re-arrival of Isa(AS) but rather is an important event before the day of judgement.
3) Isa(AS) is not a pacifist and will fight under the right circumstance. Time is not a factor here.

So even Isa(AS) knows there are circumstances under which one has to fight to preserve good and spread it.


Some other general points:
- Fighting at times is the only form of defence and offence at times is the best form of defence.
- Prevention is better then cure; naturally Muslims had to ensure control over their lands so that their enemies who were greater in number and better equiped could not use them as leverage against them. This should be quite obvious if the world super powers of the time are seeking ways to destroy you you do not wait like lambs to the slaughter.
- When believers fight it is to ensure the spread and survival of believers and their belief. Not for material gain nor to force others into their belief. But rather to facilitate the spread of the message, its practice and its protection.

"O you who believe! stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you swerve, and if you distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily Allah is well acquainted with all that you do." [Quran 4:135]

"Fight in the Way of God against those who fight you, but do not go beyond the limits. God does not love those who go beyond the limits." {Quran 2:190]

And in Islam there are protocol that must be followed even during war and History attests to the exceptional conduct of Muslims while they where in power and during war. See link to my thread below "Tolerance: Hallmark of Muslim Character"

format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
You ask what makes me think Isa would not have done the same? Remember - Jesus was persecuted by the religious authorities and eventually crucified. He said “But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”
That is because Isa(AS) was being persecuted and so were the Muslims at one stage and it lasted 13 years. You need to look at the context. Understand that they did not fight back while they were being persecuted nor did Mohammad(SAW) ever encourage them to because
1) it would have been suicide.
2) it would have turned the people against them completely.

To emphasise the kind and tolerant nature of Mohammad(SAW) Allah Says in the Quran:
"Due to Allah's mercy, you are gentle with them. Had you been severe and harsh hearted, they would have fled from around you." ((3:159)

I recommend reading related topics for a better understanding:
http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...character.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...ead-sword.html

format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
The link says violence in the Quran is largely a defense against attack by the standards of the 7th Century. So is the Quran only for the 7th Century then. Is it not the absolute timeless book for all people at all times?
I am not sure what he was reffering to but certainly Islam is for all times.


format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
Also as I’ve been saying Surah 2.29 is obviously not about self defense. As well as that the “Rightly Guided Caliphs” were expansionist and imperialist. They initiated offensive warfare.
The link also mentions the wars between Protestants and Catholics. These wars were political and cultural. As I’ve already demonstrated, you will not find anything in the New Covenant Injil that justifies warfare. The Quran is different. It has many passages that people rightly or wrongly use to justify war.

You quote two New Covenant verses - Luke 19:27 and Luke 22:36. If you read Luke 19.27 properly you will see it is a parable. An allegory. This is not Jesus saying to have enemies killed in front of him. If you read it in context from verse 12 you will see it is about receiving rewards and punishments after death.
Similar to Luke 22.36. If you read it properly you will see it was merely a symbolic act so as to fulfill the prophesy from
Isaiah 53.12 that he would be countered as a transgressor. This has nothing to do with armed Jihad.
Had I wanted I could have given you more verses from the Bible however my objective isn't to demonize Christianity nor am I going to try challenge you to show I know your religion better then you and the Christian masses.

However we both need to accept there are passage in our Holy Scriptures which can be misinterpreted which will give rise to extremism. This is why when God sends massengers along with revelations; the book is never enough. the Sunnah of learning is that you learn under someone. God taught his Massengers; His massengers taught their people, those who learnt from the massenger in turn taught others etc because men need to be guided on:

1) what they understood from the revelations (knowledge) so as not to misinterpret it
2) They then need to be shown how to put that knowledge into practice. That is the proper application of knowledge.

infact in Islam even the Ijaza(chain of succesion) to learn or to teach is preserved. For example one of my teachers(RA) whom I was learning Qirat (the proper recitation of the Qur'an) from has a certificate with the following Ijaza so we know he has a rope going to:

Abu ‘Amr Ad-Danni
Abul Hasan At-Tahir
Salih Al-Hashimi
Ahmad Al-Ushnani
Muhammad ‘Ubaid As-Sabbah
Imam Hafs
Imam ‘Asim Al-Kufi
‘Abd’ulLah Habib As-Salami,
ashab-e-kiram
who learnt from the following Sahabahs:
Uthman ibn Affan; Ali ibn Abi Talib; Zayd ibn Thabit; ‘Abd’ulLah ibn Mas’ud; and Ubay ibn Ka’b [radiALlahu anhum] who all heard from
Muhammad Al-Mustapha [salla’Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] to whom it was revealed, via the medium of the Arch-Angel Jibra’il [alayhis salam], from Allah Rabbul ‘Alamin [the Lord of the Worlds].

Similiarly there are Ijazas for for one to be qualified as a Mufassir, Muhaddith, Faqih, Mufti etc so this shows the person is qualified. And if there should be a conflicitng opinion amongst them we have been instructed by MOhammad(SAW) to follow the Majority because the Mercy of God with will be with the Majority. Scholars are the inheritors of the Prophet(SAW).

Unfortunately not just non-muslims but muslims who aren't qualified also take directly from Qur'an and Hadith. The problem becomes even more severe when such people who aren't qualified are put in a position of influence or make institution which doesn't follow this tradition. Focusing or cherry picking parts of Qur'an or Hadith and not considering the entirety of Qur'an and Sunnah as taught by Mohammad(SAW) through our Ulema will lead to extremism.

What I am saying Genesis, ironic as it may seem, is that a Minority of Muslims may agree with your view that Islam is a advocates the use of violence/war for material gain and they would be labelled as extremists. Infact there might be a role for you on ISIS ;D

Regards
Reply

InToTheRain
09-02-2014, 11:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tayyip
I don't believe ISIS is the bad organization the media lets them out to be, whenever they show ISIS they always show the violence they do what about the violence countless other people do? why not show the same violent images acted out by American soldiers killing countless innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan? Media is showing bad things about ISIS on purpose to make image of Islam bad. Let me tell you this, if you are actually in Syria then you will know what is really going on in there but if you are NOT in Syria then you have no right to claim anything on who is bad or good. - Except for Assad we all know he is bad.
:sl:

A renowned scholar of Syria has said and I quote:

"Khilafah state ISIS declared is illegitimate; its followers are deviators. Supporting it is haram. It must be stopped and will be defeated."
"The threat IS brings against Islam requires serious action by Muslim scholars such as a conference & a fatwa of by a thousand scholars."
Reply

Genesis
09-04-2014, 07:24 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by InToTheRain
Greetings to you too Genesis :)

The war with Dajjal/anti-christ is an event that occurs before the end of time and not something that occurs during the end of time. The end of time is a day of terror and something that the believers will not be subjected to. On that day the Angel Israfil(AS) will blow his trumpet 3 times. The first time it is blown will strike terror into the hearts of desbelievers and there will be much panic; it is a day of unimaginable terror.

Al-Qari'ah (the striking Hour i.e. the Day of Resurrection), What is the striking (Hour)? And what will make you know what the striking (Hour) is? It is a Day whereon mankind will be like moths scattered about, And the mountains will be like carded wool,
(Al-Qari'ah 101:1-5)

O mankind! Fear your Lord and be dutiful to Him! Verily, the earthquake of the Hour (of Judgement) is a terrible thing.
(Al-Hajj 22:1)


So Isa(AS) fights not because it is the end of time but because the criterion has been met to fight. Until the arrival of Isa(AS) his army will be led by Imam Mahdi(RA); a descendant of Mohammad(SAW). Isa(AS) will not come as a Massenger but as a Prophet and a follower of Mohammad(SAW). After the war there will be a period of peace and he will marry as due to the circumstances of his previous time on earth wasn't ideal of him to do such things. There will be such peace that even the wolves will play with lambs. However after the death of Isa(AS) mankind will again face trials and tribulations until it reaches the state where people not know anything of religion except that they remember their parents saying "Allah". After all the believers die the trumpet will be blown. Our scholars have written many books on these issues.

Point I am trying to make is:

1) Isa(AS) does not fight because it is the end of time but rather because his situation and circumstance permits it.
2) even after the war with the anti-christ there will be a period of time before the end of time signified by the blowing of the trumpet. End of time will not begin with the re-arrival of Isa(AS) but rather is an important event before the day of judgement.
3) Isa(AS) is not a pacifist and will fight under the right circumstance. Time is not a factor here.

So even Isa(AS) knows there are circumstances under which one has to fight to preserve good and spread it.


Some other general points:
- Fighting at times is the only form of defence and offence at times is the best form of defence.
- Prevention is better then cure; naturally Muslims had to ensure control over their lands so that their enemies who were greater in number and better equiped could not use them as leverage against them. This should be quite obvious if the world super powers of the time are seeking ways to destroy you you do not wait like lambs to the slaughter.
- When believers fight it is to ensure the spread and survival of believers and their belief. Not for material gain nor to force others into their belief. But rather to facilitate the spread of the message, its practice and its protection.

"O you who believe! stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you swerve, and if you distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily Allah is well acquainted with all that you do." [Quran 4:135]

"Fight in the Way of God against those who fight you, but do not go beyond the limits. God does not love those who go beyond the limits." {Quran 2:190]

And in Islam there are protocol that must be followed even during war and History attests to the exceptional conduct of Muslims while they where in power and during war. See link to my thread below "Tolerance: Hallmark of Muslim Character"



That is because Isa(AS) was being persecuted and so were the Muslims at one stage and it lasted 13 years. You need to look at the context. Understand that they did not fight back while they were being persecuted nor did Mohammad(SAW) ever encourage them to because
1) it would have been suicide.
2) it would have turned the people against them completely.

To emphasise the kind and tolerant nature of Mohammad(SAW) Allah Says in the Quran:
"Due to Allah's mercy, you are gentle with them. Had you been severe and harsh hearted, they would have fled from around you." ((3:159)

I recommend reading related topics for a better understanding:
http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...character.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...ead-sword.html



I am not sure what he was reffering to but certainly Islam is for all times.




Had I wanted I could have given you more verses from the Bible however my objective isn't to demonize Christianity nor am I going to try challenge you to show I know your religion better then you and the Christian masses.

However we both need to accept there are passage in our Holy Scriptures which can be misinterpreted which will give rise to extremism. This is why when God sends massengers along with revelations; the book is never enough. the Sunnah of learning is that you learn under someone. God taught his Massengers; His massengers taught their people, those who learnt from the massenger in turn taught others etc because men need to be guided on:

1) what they understood from the revelations (knowledge) so as not to misinterpret it
2) They then need to be shown how to put that knowledge into practice. That is the proper application of knowledge.

infact in Islam even the Ijaza(chain of succesion) to learn or to teach is preserved. For example one of my teachers(RA) whom I was learning Qirat (the proper recitation of the Qur'an) from has a certificate with the following Ijaza so we know he has a rope going to:

Abu ‘Amr Ad-Danni
Abul Hasan At-Tahir
Salih Al-Hashimi
Ahmad Al-Ushnani
Muhammad ‘Ubaid As-Sabbah
Imam Hafs
Imam ‘Asim Al-Kufi
‘Abd’ulLah Habib As-Salami,
ashab-e-kiram
who learnt from the following Sahabahs:
Uthman ibn Affan; Ali ibn Abi Talib; Zayd ibn Thabit; ‘Abd’ulLah ibn Mas’ud; and Ubay ibn Ka’b [radiALlahu anhum] who all heard from
Muhammad Al-Mustapha [salla’Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] to whom it was revealed, via the medium of the Arch-Angel Jibra’il [alayhis salam], from Allah Rabbul ‘Alamin [the Lord of the Worlds].

Similiarly there are Ijazas for for one to be qualified as a Mufassir, Muhaddith, Faqih, Mufti etc so this shows the person is qualified. And if there should be a conflicitng opinion amongst them we have been instructed by MOhammad(SAW) to follow the Majority because the Mercy of God with will be with the Majority. Scholars are the inheritors of the Prophet(SAW).

Unfortunately not just non-muslims but muslims who aren't qualified also take directly from Qur'an and Hadith. The problem becomes even more severe when such people who aren't qualified are put in a position of influence or make institution which doesn't follow this tradition. Focusing or cherry picking parts of Qur'an or Hadith and not considering the entirety of Qur'an and Sunnah as taught by Mohammad(SAW) through our Ulema will lead to extremism.

What I am saying Genesis, ironic as it may seem, is that a Minority of Muslims may agree with your view that Islam is a advocates the use of violence/war for material gain and they would be labelled as extremists. Infact there might be a role for you on ISIS ;D

Regards
The Injil is a reliable historical record as to the man Isa that walked the earth 2000 years ago. If you read the Injil you will see he was a pacifist, unlike Mohammad who lived by the sword.
Everything you have talked about is to do with the end times. It was the example Isa set 2000 years ago that is the example to our conduct today. Isa required believers to follow his example when he said –

"Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching.
John 14.23

So because Isa also said -

But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”
Mathew 5.39.

“Put away your sword, Jesus told him. Those who use the sword will die by the sword.”
Mathew 26.52.

Then it means we are to follow his example and not be people of the sword. You say fighting at times is the only form of defense and offence at times is the best form of defense. My question is who is to say what is defense and what is offense. That’s why Muslim groups like ISIS exist because Muslims are confused and the Quaran and hadith are not clear.

You say fighting is not for material gain nor to force others into their belief. However If you read Surah 9.28 – 30 you will see that the Quran is talking about fighting against Jews and Christians due to their wrong beliefs and for material gain.

You also say in Islam there are protocol that must be followed even during war and history attests to the exceptional conduct of Muslims while they where in power and during war. Intotherain doesn’t Bukhari record that Mohammad had his enemies tortured by having their hands and feet cut off and then he ordered for hot nails to be put into their eyes ? How is that tolerance?

You say Isa was being persecuted and so were the Muslims. The difference is however Isa said “But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”
Muslims on the other hand responded with the sword. When you read the context behind Surah 9.28-30, Mohammad’s letters to the Kings and Ibn Kathirs commentary it appears it was Muslims doing the persecuting. The Caliphate under the “Rightly Guided Caliphs” was expansionist and imperialist. This could only be so if they initiated offensive warfare. Not defense.

You say you could give me more verses from the Bible however your objective isn't to demonize Christianity.
Don’t worry about demonizing Christianity Intotherain. I won’t take offence. Please send me the other verses from the Bible you are thinking of.

You say we both need to accept there are passage in our Holy Scriptures which can be misinterpreted which will give rise to extremism. Yes, Christians in the past have been influenced by the Jewish Old Covenant scriptures. But only because as Christians (Christ Ones) they did not know Christ Jesus The Messiah. However the book of the Christians - the Injil is very clear that we are not to live by the sword. The Quran and hadith are not as clear and that is why Islam has this problem.

You talk about the transmission of truth down through teachers and the Sunnah of learning that you learn under someone else qualified. My question then is - If it is that difficult to get the truth and it is so complicated how can Islam be a message to mankind?

Blessings

Reply

InToTheRain
09-04-2014, 08:57 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
The Injil is a reliable historical record as to the man Isa that walked the earth 2000 years ago. If you read the Injil you will see he was a pacifist, unlike Mohammad who lived by the sword.
What Non-Muslims Say About Prophet Muhammad (Mohammed)

Regards
Reply

Ahmad H
09-04-2014, 05:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
The Injil is a reliable historical record as to the man Isa that walked the earth 2000 years ago. If you read the Injil you will see he was a pacifist, unlike Mohammad who lived by the sword.
Everything you have talked about is to do with the end times. It was the example Isa set 2000 years ago that is the example to our conduct today. Isa required believers to follow his example when he said –

"Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching.
John 14.23

So because Isa also said -

“But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”
Mathew 5.39.

“Put away your sword, Jesus told him. Those who use the sword will die by the sword.”
Mathew 26.52.
Allow me to jump in. the Injil has been changed too many times to count. Have you read the actual Aramaic version of the Injil and understood it. The Aramaic as it was when it was revealed to Jesus (as) 2000 years ago? I don't think so. You read translations of the Bible which have been changed. So let's not call a changed text historical, shall we? It is dishonest and above all, intellectually dishonest. Every Christian I have talked to so far in my life, in person, has openly admitted the Bible has changed. This is why so many Christians became Atheists, because they knew the Bible is changed and they are not following a text which is authentic.

As for living by the sword, Christians have done so for a long time. Many countries with people of Christian background and religion are war-mongers. Look at the United States! Republicans are conservative Christians, and most Christians there are just hoping for Armageddon and the destruction of the Muslim countries. Christians do more than living by the sword. They hold the sword above other people's heads and blame them for when it falls on them. Your text has no bearing on the acts of Christians. I know just how hypocritical they are. Do evil and Christ forgives your sins, right? Right, just go baptize in a river and all is okay. Even if you were the worst person on earth. That is some form of salvation! I discussed Christianity with Christians before and the hardcore believers truly stand by this. If Christ saves the evildoer, according to you, then what about the ones who did not find justice? Is justice found for a crime if the victim's perpetrator of the crime is vindicated just because they get baptized in a river?

To be honest, even if you think that river of water for baptizing saves you, it is really a river of fire. For that river does not save, and it does not erase sin. Sin hangs to you by your neck, and you bring your deeds with you on the Day of Judgment. Everyone bears their own cross, pardon the pun. But I congratulate you if you are a Christian who doesn't stick to this type of doctrine like the hardcore Christians I spoke with on this subject. I commend you if you believe that sins are stuck with you until you truly ask God for forgiveness. Forgiveness doesn't happen with a splash. It happens with tears, with sweat, with fearful and sad prayers to God, hoping that He pardons you because you love Him and for fear of His wrath.

format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
Then it means we are to follow his example and not be people of the sword. You say fighting at times is the only form of defense and offence at times is the best form of defense. My question is who is to say what is defense and what is offense. That’s why Muslim groups like ISIS exist because Muslims are confused and the Quaran and hadith are not clear.
Crusades happened, Spanish inquisition happened. These were Christians. Tell me, how clear is your scripture with such groups? Again, Republican war-mongers, who are right conservative Christians are no different. They all speak of war. It was war that caused ISIS to spring up. It is a political problem, and it is not religious. This is a problem which started with the Gulf Crisis in Iraq. This did not come up overnight.

format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
You say fighting is not for material gain nor to force others into their belief. However If you read Surah 9.28 – 30 you will see that the Quran is talking about fighting against Jews and Christians due to their wrong beliefs and for material gain.

You also say in Islam there are protocol that must be followed even during war and history attests to the exceptional conduct of Muslims while they where in power and during war. Intotherain doesn’t Bukhari record that Mohammad had his enemies tortured by having their hands and feet cut off and then he ordered for hot nails to be put into their eyes ? How is that tolerance?
Are you talking about the incident in which some people came as believers to Medina, fell sick and they were treated by a shepherd of the Holy Prophet (saw), and then after they got better they killed his (saw)'s shepherd, and took the flock of sheep and released them, even though this flock was from the charity of the people and meant to be utilized for charitable purposes? These people rode off having declared war on the Muslims. That was a clear act of war because the following verse was revealed in regards to this very situation:

5:33 The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.

The object underlying the injunction embodied in the words, "their hands and their feet be cut off on alternate sides," is, on the one hand, to disable the culprit from carrying on a war of aggression, and on the other, to leave him fit enough to earn his living by doing some work. The cutting off of the hand and the foot on the same side would leave the victim utterly helpless. The verse also shows that Islam does not hesitate to take extreme measures to uproot an evil when the interests of society or the State demand it. Islam is not a religion of false sentiments but of sound judgement and true reason.

Christianity does not speak of such laws. If this happened to Christians, then should they go run after that group of renegades, and tell them, "hold on! Kill another one of us! We have to follow the motto ,'turn the other cheek'!" I highly doubt it. If that was your shepherd, and they took care of those people who killed him, then would you not bring them to justice? Your Bible does not provide any solutions to this problem, it only feeds fuel to the fire and allows more innocent lives to be killed. Turning the other cheek every time someone does injustice to you is very wrong. If a rapist were to rape someone, would you say, "Hey! Rape them again!" These extreme situations do not call for turning the other cheek. There needs to be punishments that do justice.

format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
You say Isa was being persecuted and so were the Muslims. The difference is however Isa said “But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”
Muslims on the other hand responded with the sword. When you read the context behind Surah 9.28-30, Mohammad’s letters to the Kings and Ibn Kathirs commentary it appears it was Muslims doing the persecuting. The Caliphate under the “Rightly Guided Caliphs” was expansionist and imperialist. This could only be so if they initiated offensive warfare. Not defense.
I already explained these verses to you before. Yet you ignored them. If the Bible says this:

Matthew 10:34
""Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Then what do you say? I could keep quoting this again and again, allow you to explain yourself, and then ignore you and talk about this verse in my own interpretation again. Then I could say, "well, it's not clear!"

Funny how you twist what you say. You said the Qur'an is clear before to me, and yet you say the Qur'an is not clear to IntotheRain! This is low-handed Genesis. If you don't know something, then just ask. Don't twist things and throw your own opinionated interpretations into the mix.

format_quote Originally Posted by Genesis
You talk about the transmission of truth down through teachers and the Sunnah of learning that you learn under someone else qualified. My question then is - If it is that difficult to get the truth and it is so complicated how can Islam be a message to mankind?
The Qur'an was revealed 1400 years ago, and is a text which must be understood with the context of the time and place it was revealed in. It requires that knowledge so we can extend that knowledge to what we know ourselves. It was a different time period, in a different part of the world, and it requires some sides knowledge.

The Sunnah is the actions we learn. These actions are transmitted through the people who observed the Holy Prophet (saw) and his actions. These are actions we follow and which are preserved. The strictness in interpretations is so that deviations don't occur. Even if they do, there is one guideline to following it. The following Hadith explains this:

It has been related by, Yazid b. al-Asamm that he heard Mu'awiya b. Abu Sfyan quote a tradition from the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) which he related from the Prophet (mail peace he upon him) -and he did not hear him quote from the Holy Prophet (masy peace be upon him) any tradition other than this in the course of his sermon from the pulpit-that whom Allah wants to do a favour, He grants him an understanding of religion. A group of people from the Muslims will remain on the Right Path and continue until the Day of Judgment to triumph over those who oppose them. (Book #020, Hadith #4720)
(Sahih Bukhari)

Islam is a certain religion with certain rules. Nothing is not explained. Every common Muslim is different, but the religion remains the same always, and there is always a group which is correct. They started off strange in the beginning of Islam, and end up strange once again in the End of Times. So even if a time comes when most Muslims do not know what is correct, then this does not harm the group which is always in the right.

And Allah gets the message of Islam to mankind. He does so through His Prophets:

9:33 It is He Who hath sent His Messenger with guidance and the Religion of Truth, to proclaim it over all religion, even though the Pagans may detest (it).

This is destined to occur in the time when Isa (as) descends and spreads the truth of Islam everywhere. That is what this verse refers to. Because Islam is destined to become dominant over all religions in his time period, not in anyone else's. The Day of Judgment cannot happen until that time. So there is no doubt that Islam will spread everywhere.

When Islam is dominant, then after some time after Isa (as) is gone from this world, for God knows how long, the world will be in peace, then the believers will slowly die off because Allah wants that to happen. Only the worst of people will be left in the world and then the Hour is established on these people who live comfortable lives, but they do not remember Allah. They would return to idolatry and fornicate like animals in the streets.
Reply

OmAbdullah
09-05-2014, 06:55 PM
we cannot say whether they show their brutality themselves or not because we are not there. Allah knows the best who is doing what! So we pray to Allah to decide the case and bring Fath and Nasar to the Just, Fair and Merciful people. Allah knows who they are and Allah has the Power to help them. May Allah end the cruelty and killing done by cruel killers, aameen, Allah knows who are they. O Muslims, you and we all must pray to Allah to send HIS HELP to the just and truly merciful people and I believe they are Muslims and only Muslims.
Reply

Genesis
09-06-2014, 07:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmad H
Allow me to jump in. the Injil has been changed too many times to count. Have you read the actual Aramaic version of the Injil and understood it. The Aramaic as it was when it was revealed to Jesus (as) 2000 years ago? I don't think so. You read translations of the Bible which have been changed. So let's not call a changed text historical, shall we? It is dishonest and above all, intellectually dishonest. Every Christian I have talked to so far in my life, in person, has openly admitted the Bible has changed. This is why so many Christians became Atheists, because they knew the Bible is changed and they are not following a text which is authentic.

As for living by the sword, Christians have done so for a long time. Many countries with people of Christian background and religion are war-mongers. Look at the United States! Republicans are conservative Christians, and most Christians there are just hoping for Armageddon and the destruction of the Muslim countries. Christians do more than living by the sword. They hold the sword above other people's heads and blame them for when it falls on them. Your text has no bearing on the acts of Christians. I know just how hypocritical they are. Do evil and Christ forgives your sins, right? Right, just go baptize in a river and all is okay. Even if you were the worst person on earth. That is some form of salvation! I discussed Christianity with Christians before and the hardcore believers truly stand by this. If Christ saves the evildoer, according to you, then what about the ones who did not find justice? Is justice found for a crime if the victim's perpetrator of the crime is vindicated just because they get baptized in a river?

To be honest, even if you think that river of water for baptizing saves you, it is really a river of fire. For that river does not save, and it does not erase sin. Sin hangs to you by your neck, and you bring your deeds with you on the Day of Judgment. Everyone bears their own cross, pardon the pun. But I congratulate you if you are a Christian who doesn't stick to this type of doctrine like the hardcore Christians I spoke with on this subject. I commend you if you believe that sins are stuck with you until you truly ask God for forgiveness. Forgiveness doesn't happen with a splash. It happens with tears, with sweat, with fearful and sad prayers to God, hoping that He pardons you because you love Him and for fear of His wrath.



Crusades happened, Spanish inquisition happened. These were Christians. Tell me, how clear is your scripture with such groups? Again, Republican war-mongers, who are right conservative Christians are no different. They all speak of war. It was war that caused ISIS to spring up. It is a political problem, and it is not religious. This is a problem which started with the Gulf Crisis in Iraq. This did not come up overnight.



Are you talking about the incident in which some people came as believers to Medina, fell sick and they were treated by a shepherd of the Holy Prophet (saw), and then after they got better they killed his (saw)'s shepherd, and took the flock of sheep and released them, even though this flock was from the charity of the people and meant to be utilized for charitable purposes? These people rode off having declared war on the Muslims. That was a clear act of war because the following verse was revealed in regards to this very situation:

5:33 The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.

The object underlying the injunction embodied in the words, "their hands and their feet be cut off on alternate sides," is, on the one hand, to disable the culprit from carrying on a war of aggression, and on the other, to leave him fit enough to earn his living by doing some work. The cutting off of the hand and the foot on the same side would leave the victim utterly helpless. The verse also shows that Islam does not hesitate to take extreme measures to uproot an evil when the interests of society or the State demand it. Islam is not a religion of false sentiments but of sound judgement and true reason.

Christianity does not speak of such laws. If this happened to Christians, then should they go run after that group of renegades, and tell them, "hold on! Kill another one of us! We have to follow the motto ,'turn the other cheek'!" I highly doubt it. If that was your shepherd, and they took care of those people who killed him, then would you not bring them to justice? Your Bible does not provide any solutions to this problem, it only feeds fuel to the fire and allows more innocent lives to be killed. Turning the other cheek every time someone does injustice to you is very wrong. If a rapist were to rape someone, would you say, "Hey! Rape them again!" These extreme situations do not call for turning the other cheek. There needs to be punishments that do justice.



I already explained these verses to you before. Yet you ignored them. If the Bible says this:

Matthew 10:34
""Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Then what do you say? I could keep quoting this again and again, allow you to explain yourself, and then ignore you and talk about this verse in my own interpretation again. Then I could say, "well, it's not clear!"

Funny how you twist what you say. You said the Qur'an is clear before to me, and yet you say the Qur'an is not clear to IntotheRain! This is low-handed Genesis. If you don't know something, then just ask. Don't twist things and throw your own opinionated interpretations into the mix.



The Qur'an was revealed 1400 years ago, and is a text which must be understood with the context of the time and place it was revealed in. It requires that knowledge so we can extend that knowledge to what we know ourselves. It was a different time period, in a different part of the world, and it requires some sides knowledge.

The Sunnah is the actions we learn. These actions are transmitted through the people who observed the Holy Prophet (saw) and his actions. These are actions we follow and which are preserved. The strictness in interpretations is so that deviations don't occur. Even if they do, there is one guideline to following it. The following Hadith explains this:

It has been related by, Yazid b. al-Asamm that he heard Mu'awiya b. Abu Sfyan quote a tradition from the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) which he related from the Prophet (mail peace he upon him) -and he did not hear him quote from the Holy Prophet (masy peace be upon him) any tradition other than this in the course of his sermon from the pulpit-that whom Allah wants to do a favour, He grants him an understanding of religion. A group of people from the Muslims will remain on the Right Path and continue until the Day of Judgment to triumph over those who oppose them. (Book #020, Hadith #4720)
(Sahih Bukhari)

Islam is a certain religion with certain rules. Nothing is not explained. Every common Muslim is different, but the religion remains the same always, and there is always a group which is correct. They started off strange in the beginning of Islam, and end up strange once again in the End of Times. So even if a time comes when most Muslims do not know what is correct, then this does not harm the group which is always in the right.

And Allah gets the message of Islam to mankind. He does so through His Prophets:

9:33 It is He Who hath sent His Messenger with guidance and the Religion of Truth, to proclaim it over all religion, even though the Pagans may detest (it).

This is destined to occur in the time when Isa (as) descends and spreads the truth of Islam everywhere. That is what this verse refers to. Because Islam is destined to become dominant over all religions in his time period, not in anyone else's. The Day of Judgment cannot happen until that time. So there is no doubt that Islam will spread everywhere.

When Islam is dominant, then after some time after Isa (as) is gone from this world, for God knows how long, the world will be in peace, then the believers will slowly die off because Allah wants that to happen. Only the worst of people will be left in the world and then the Hour is established on these people who live comfortable lives, but they do not remember Allah. They would return to idolatry and fornicate like animals in the streets.
You say the Injil has been changed too many times to count. Where is your proof? Who changed it? When was it changed? How was it changed ? and Why ? Actually the new testament is the most valid of all ancient writings. More ancient copies exist than any other ancient writing, and ancient copies covered such a wide geographic area that it was impossible for them to be gathered together and falsified or changed.
You have no record of the Quran before Uthman burnt all original copies. So how do you know you have the real thing?
In fact the only pre Uthman copy in existence was found in Yemen in the 1970s and it reveals many problems in the transmission of what you think the Quran is.

You ask if I have read the actual Aramaic version of the Injil. Actually the Injil was written in Greek, not Aramaic.
Can you read Classical Arabic? If so you would be in the minority of Muslims. Considering the Quran as being the “Word of God” and can only be really understood in Classical Arabic, I don’t see how that qualifies it to be “The Word of God”. It makes more sense to me that if God wanted to communicate truth he would be able to do it in any or all languages. Not just Arabic.

Have you ever read the Injil? If you do you will see it was not actually revealed to Jesus in Aramaic as you say. Rather it is eye witness accounts of what Jesus did and said. It is similar to your hadith than the Quran in that respect. It was also recorded in the life times of those eye witnesses. Unlike your most reliable hadith which was written 200 after the events.

You talk about translations of the Bible being a problem. You can read the Injil in the original Greek if you want. Most Christian leaders have been trained in Greek.

Even the Quran speaks of the New Testament as The Word of God. No where does it say it was changed or corrupted.

Say: “O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord.”
Surah 5:68

And believe in that I have sent down, confirming that which IS with you, and be not the first to disbelieve in it. And sell not My signs for a little price; and fear you Me.
S. 2:41

You say so many Christians became Atheists because they know the Bible is changed and not authentic. That’s kind of funny when you consider so many Muslims becoming atheists or changing their religion due to problems with the Quran and Islamist extremists like ISIS.

You say Christians have lived by the sword and are war-mongers such as the United States with Republicans hoping for Armageddon and the destruction of the Muslim countries. You forget the United States is a secular government. Church and state are separate. It is not a theocracy similar to where Muslims try to achieve religion and state being combined. So to try to say that the actions of the United States is Christian has no basis.

I’m not sure what you’re going on about being baptized into rivers of fire, justice, sin, etc and forgiveness doesn't happen with a splash ???? Maybe you should leave Christian doctrine up to Christians.

You say salvation only happens with tears, sweat, and fearful sad prayers to God, hoping that He pardons you. So what makes you think that will ever be good enough? What makes you think your tears, sweat, fear and prayers will ever be enough? That’s the difference. We recognize no human with all their best efforts can ever be enough to please the Most Holy God. That is why only He can do it through his grace.

You mention the crusades and Inquisition. The crusades and Inquisition were political and cultural movements in the clothes of religion. My challenge to you stands. Find me any where in the Christian New Testament for verses that justify the behavior of the crusades or inquisition. You will not find it. The Quran and hadith are full of these verses however.
You talk about Christian Conservative Republican war mongers. What you don’t understand is that the USA is a secular government where religion and politics are separate. This is different from Islam where religion and government are one.
You say the problem with ISIS stated in the first Gulf war. I disagree. The problem with ISIS started with the split between Sunni and Shiite centuries ago.

Yes you are correct. I’m talking about when Mohammad orderedhis enemies hands and feet to be cut off and burning nails put into their eyes. You neglected to mention the sadistic detail of the burning nails put into their eyes. How come?
The fact that you justify this kind of behavior is sick. And it’s this kind of thinking that leads to the sick evil behavior from Muslim groups such as ISIS.

You say it shows that Islam does not hesitate to take extreme measures to uproot an evil. Extreme measures to stick burning nails into peoples eyes! Islam taking extreme measures. So which Muslims within Islam are taking extreme measures? Al Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS ?

You ask what would Christians do if there is injustice or they were being attacked or raped? You say there needs to be punishment for justice and the Bible does not provide any solutions to this problem. You raise very good and difficult questions for Christians. However you are only partly right when you say the Bible does not provide a solution. The Bible makes the distinction between individual conscience and the state where it states -

The authorities are God's servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God's servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong.
Romans 13.4

Jesus said, "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God."
Mark 12.17

As a result Christians are subject to the state government and authorities, and if the state ordered Christians to fight in the military they need to exercise individual conscience whether to do so or not. Christians look to a higher kingdom, and we accept that our behavior will not always achieve the higher ideal. As unobtainable as that standard maybe, it is still a standard to aspire to and as a standard it is morally and ethically higher than that of revenge and retribution that you are promoting.

As a result there will always be an expectation for Christians to forgive and not retaliate. Throughout Christian history there have always been Christian pacifists and many have been imprisoned or persecuted for their beliefs.

You are wrong when you say turning the other cheek only feeds fuel to the fire and allows more innocent lives to be killed. If you look at human history and human nature through time you will see war after war due to revenge and retribution. Only forgiveness breaks that cycle.

You said you have already explained Surah 9.28-30. Actually Ahmad you have not adequately explained Surah 9.28-30. All you have said is that it was a time where Muslims launched a pre emptive strike against the Romans in self defense. The support you gave from Ibn Kathir does not contradict what I have already quoted from Ibn Kathir. Your explanation is not adequate. You have given poor proof for this while I have given proven through the historical and literary context. Once again – the context is clear the Romans did not attack the Muslims but the Muslims attacked them for money. Have a good read of Surah 9.28 -30, Mohammad’s letters and Ibn Katir.

You claim I said to you that the Qur'an is clear but yet I said the Qur'an is not clear to IntotheRain. You misunderstand Ahmad.
I never said to you the Quaran is clear. I don’t believe it is clear. Its just that you and Intotherain have been trying to avoid the reality of Surah 9.28-30 by saying it is not clear, needs to be read in context, or we need some kind of special knowledge. So my point to you both is that if the Quaran is clear as it states it is, then you and Intotherain are contradicting the Quran.

You say the Quran is a text which must be understood with the context of the time and place it was revealed in. Once again you have avoided the context of Surah 9.28 -30. All you have said so far is that it was a time where Muslims launched a pre emptive strike in defense. This is no explanation. You have given no proof where I have proven the literary and historical context to you. I have provided adequate proof. Where is yours?

You say there is a group which is correct, that started off strange in the beginning of Islam, and end up strange once again in the End of Times. This sounds like some kind of mystery, elite. How can so many be wrong if the Quran is excellent clear and perfect

“This is) a Book, the Ayat whereof are perfect (in every sphere of knowledge), and then explained in detail from One (Allah), Who is All-Wise Well-Acquainted (with all things).”
11.1,

“These are the verses of the Book that is clear.”
12.1 and 27.1.

“A Book whereof the Ayat are explained in detail”
41.3,

“It is He Who sends down manifest Ayat to His servant that He may bring you out from darkness into light.”
57.9.

Reply

Akeyi
01-05-2017, 01:34 PM
the Prophet said SAV , “When you indulge in al-`Eenah transactions, you follow the tails of cows, you become satisfied with farming, and you abandon Jihadin Allah's Path, Allah will put humiliation on you and will not remove it until you return to your religion.

Now you can say why i just put this here i came to search i wrote ottoman empire that i see this topic then i searched ottoman empire in thread then i found some post but because of stupidness of something i dont know i could not read so i thought maybe someone wrote bad things about ottoman empire beacuse of history influenced by western infidels.
Reply

Yahya.
03-30-2018, 10:50 AM
Seems like this thread went far off topic in the last posts.

Here is a translated audio lecture by the Egyptian al-Azhar graduate scholar al-Sharawi.



Actually what he is pointing out in the beginning is the general view of the Hanafi school as explained by Imam as-Sarakhsi in al-Mabsut and others.
Reply

anatolian
03-30-2018, 11:37 AM
Salam. Jihad has both offensive and defensive nature since it means struggle (of the muslim against non-Islam). A struggle can be against anything and sometimes you need to defend yourself it is atacking you but sometimes you need to atack to destroy the cause.

It is hard to accept for majority of muslims but there is offensive jihad in Islam although the Prophet said that the most important jihad is the one which is against your own nafs.

Tawba 29 is clear for the offensive jihad

9:29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection
Reply

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
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!