Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Click the "Create Account" button now to join.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 88

Thread: Offensive Jihad

  1. #1
    Full Member Array Holly3278's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Tornado Alley, USA
    Gender
    Female
    Religion
    Christianity
    Posts
    41
    Threads
    15
    Reputation
    295
    Rep Power
    60

    Offensive Jihad (OP)


    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?

  2. #61
    Servant of Allah Scimitar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Walking Wounded
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    6,552
    Threads
    78
    Reputation
    46211
    Rep Power
    65
    Likes (Given)
    7765
    Likes (Received)
    5514

    Re: Offensive Jihad


    Quote Originally Posted by Jedi_Mindset View Post
    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
    1 | Likes Jedi_Mindset liked this post
    Offensive Jihad

    Some people just wanna catch pokemon, while the world burns

  3. Report bad ads?
  4. #62
    IB Oldtimer Jedi_Mindset's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Holland
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    1,345
    Threads
    67
    Reputation
    5572
    Rep Power
    37
    Likes (Given)
    1041
    Likes (Received)
    880

    Re: Offensive Jihad


    Ah that explains alot, so the muslims were actually invited.
    Offensive Jihad

    http://www.youtube.com/user/robinb4life?feature=mhee
    I will not calm down until I will put one cheek of a tyrant on the ground and the other under my feet, and for the poor and weak, I will put my cheek on the ground.
    - Umar ibn khattab(Ra)

  5. #63
    IB Senior Member Ahmad H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    598
    Threads
    14
    Reputation
    2395
    Rep Power
    27
    Likes (Given)
    16
    Likes (Received)
    207

    Re: Offensive Jihad


    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    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!

    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    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)

    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    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...

  6. #64
    IB Senior Member Ahmad H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    598
    Threads
    14
    Reputation
    2395
    Rep Power
    27
    Likes (Given)
    16
    Likes (Received)
    207

    Re: Offensive Jihad


    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    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)

  7. #65
    IB Senior Member Ahmad H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    598
    Threads
    14
    Reputation
    2395
    Rep Power
    27
    Likes (Given)
    16
    Likes (Received)
    207

    Re: Offensive Jihad


    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    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?

  8. #66
    Account Disabled Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    new zealand
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Judeo-Christianity
    Posts
    56
    Threads
    1
    Reputation
    6
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    1

    Re: Offensive Jihad


    Quote Originally Posted by InToTheRain View Post
    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.

  9. #67
    Account Disabled Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    new zealand
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Judeo-Christianity
    Posts
    56
    Threads
    1
    Reputation
    6
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    1

    Re: Offensive Jihad


    Quote Originally Posted by Ahmad H View Post
    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.





  10. #68
    Account Disabled Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    new zealand
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Judeo-Christianity
    Posts
    56
    Threads
    1
    Reputation
    6
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    1

    Re: Offensive Jihad


    Quote Originally Posted by Ahmad H View Post
    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?

  11. #69
    Account Disabled Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    new zealand
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Judeo-Christianity
    Posts
    56
    Threads
    1
    Reputation
    6
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    1

    Re: Offensive Jihad


    Quote Originally Posted by Ahmad H View Post
    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.

  12. Report bad ads?
  13. #70
    Account Disabled Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    new zealand
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Judeo-Christianity
    Posts
    56
    Threads
    1
    Reputation
    6
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    1

    Re: Offensive Jihad


    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.
    Last edited by Genesis; 08-31-2014 at 05:37 AM.

  14. #71
    Servant of Allah Scimitar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Walking Wounded
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    6,552
    Threads
    78
    Reputation
    46211
    Rep Power
    65
    Likes (Given)
    7765
    Likes (Received)
    5514

    Re: Offensive Jihad


    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
    Offensive Jihad

    Some people just wanna catch pokemon, while the world burns

  15. #72
    IB Senior Member syed_z's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    730
    Threads
    21
    Reputation
    5117
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    273
    Likes (Received)
    330

    Re: Offensive Jihad


    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    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.

  16. #73
    IB Senior Member Ahmad H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    598
    Threads
    14
    Reputation
    2395
    Rep Power
    27
    Likes (Given)
    16
    Likes (Received)
    207

    Re: Offensive Jihad


    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Ahmad H; 08-31-2014 at 01:53 PM.

  17. #74
    IB Senior Member Ahmad H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    598
    Threads
    14
    Reputation
    2395
    Rep Power
    27
    Likes (Given)
    16
    Likes (Received)
    207

    Re: Offensive Jihad


    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    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.

  18. #75
    IB Senior Member Ahmad H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    598
    Threads
    14
    Reputation
    2395
    Rep Power
    27
    Likes (Given)
    16
    Likes (Received)
    207

    Re: Offensive Jihad


    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    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?

  19. #76
    IB Oldtimer Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Antipodes
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    1,074
    Threads
    13
    Reputation
    1381
    Rep Power
    53
    Likes (Given)
    62
    Likes (Received)
    167

    Re: Offensive Jihad


    @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?
    Last edited by Karl; 08-31-2014 at 11:04 PM.

  20. #77
    IB Senior Member OmAbdullah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Gender
    Female
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    528
    Threads
    33
    Reputation
    3194
    Rep Power
    18
    Likes (Given)
    505
    Likes (Received)
    232

    Re: Offensive Jihad


    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    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.

  21. #78
    Limited Member Tayyip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Turkey
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    3
    Threads
    0
    Reputation
    6
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    1

    Re: Offensive Jihad


    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.

  22. #79
    Full Member daveyats's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Christianity
    Posts
    69
    Threads
    3
    Reputation
    9
    Rep Power
    17
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    4

    Re: Offensive Jihad


    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.

  23. Report bad ads?
  24. #80
    IB Oldskool ardianto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Indonesia
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    8,249
    Threads
    147
    Reputation
    49299
    Rep Power
    83
    Likes (Given)
    2643
    Likes (Received)
    4498

    Re: Offensive Jihad


    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.

 

 
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Hey there! Offensive Jihad Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Offensive Jihad
Sign Up

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •