On Empire: a question from the Islam-violent? thread

[brenton]

In reading the threads about violence, a number of Muslims noted that Islam teaches that Muslims can respond to violence, but are not to be violent just for the sake of violence or power. Much of the violence in the Prophet's life was the result of attacks on him and his community, and Mecca was taken without the shedding of blood after Muhammad had escaped earlier.

So I was wondering about how Muslims look at Islam's imperial and colonial past. It is true the Khan's converted as leaders like Rome converted to Christianity after centuries. But Muslims not only threw off oppressors, but conquered terroritories as far east as India, north to the Balkans and the "stan" nations, south into Africa and west into Spain--and even made entrees into France.

That century of battle was not self-defense, but for the purpose of Empire building. Is that view by you Muslim folks as necessary and "just" violence or as against Muslim principles?

My own belief about Christianity is that "Christian" nations or post-Christian nations should not be building empires by violence and force. I wonder what Muslims think.

[Woodrow]

I will only speak of what I am familiar with. My ancestors the Lipkas, were invited into Lithuanian to help protect Lithuania from the the Crusaders that were conquering Hungry, Germany, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

They did rise to promenance in Lithuania and did introduce Islam into the Baltics. But, they never ruled Non-Muslims within those countries and as I said early they came as invited defenders and not as invaders.

[Malaikah]

That century of battle was not self-defense, but for the purpose of Empire building. Is that view by you Muslim folks as necessary and "just" violence or as against Muslim principles?

It was not about empire building, it was about spreading Islam to the people for their own good (i.e. to save them from hell fire)

[Trumble]

It was not about empire building, it was about spreading Islam to the people for their own good (i.e. to save them from hell fire)

Substitute 'democracy' for 'Islam' and that sounds very familiar!

Historically speaking it is important to be honest, I think. For most involved in the muslim conquest it had far more to do with acquiring land, wealth, fame and glory than in "spreading Islam to the people for their own good". Much the same was true of the Crusades.

[Malaikah]

^Not during the time of the prophet and the companions.

[brenton]

It was not about empire building, it was about spreading Islam to the people for their own good (i.e. to save them from hell fire)

Why not do it as in parts of Southeast Asia--without the sword?

[- Qatada -]

Islaam spread to the other lands and established its authority because the people at that time were obliged to follow the religion of their ruler. If they decided to follow another religion they were likely to be executed, hence when islaam settled there the people had a chance to either accept islaam or follow their religion so long as they payed the jizya tax [the same way the muslims payed the zakaah.]

The people could accept islaam, yet at the same time they could live in that country following their scripture. This was a form of freedom for these people and they were happy to live under islamic rule because 1) they weren't forced to leave their own faith 2) their blood and honor was protected so long as they payed the jizya. Only the muslims would fight, and the non muslims wouldn't have to.



Peace.

[Fishman]

I think one of the reasons for the empire-building in Europe, North Africa and Western Asia was because of the political climate at the time. The Byzantines, for example, had long been an enemy of Islam ever since the time of the Prophet (pbuh) and had betrayed the Muslims many times. The Byzantine's allies included many European countries, such as Spain and Italy. These countries probably had some interest in establishing ports in North Africa, which would provide them with greater trade. So the Muslims took the Maghreb, the coast of North Africa, and advanced onward to Sicily, Italy and Spain, all of which did not have a very good opinion of Islam. In the areas of North Africa further south, desert tribes ruled, and there was very little confict.

The conquest of India, however, was probably due to imperial ambitions and expansionism. There were many massacres and bloody battles, and unfortunately most of these were commited by Muslims. Later during the Muslim rule of India, things became more peaceful.

[Malaikah]

Islaam spread to the other lands and established its authority because the people at that time were obliged to follow the religion of their ruler. If they decided to follow another religion they were likely to be executed, hence when islaam settled there the people had a chance to either accept islaam or follow their religion so long as they payed the jizya tax [the same way the muslims payed the zakaah.]

Wow, that is interesting. Where did you hear this from? Do you have a source?

Why not do it as in parts of Southeast Asia--without the sword?

Simply because that does not always work- different places, different situations. (As highlighted rather nicely by Fi_Sabilillah's post).

[brenton]

Malaikah, there were Christian groups that were persecuted by other Christian groups sometimes, so there were times when Christians would cheer has Muslim warriors would march into town and liberate them from the Byzantines. Not always, but sometimes.

It was interesting that conquered peoples were not forced to become Muslim, as the Qu'ran forbids it from what I heard. That's why your response puzzles me. It seems to me that empire building is against a couple of Qu'ran principles.

[- Qatada -]

Wow, that is interesting. Where did you hear this from? Do you have a source?

This happened within the lifetime of the Prophet (peace be upon him) when a governor/ruler became muslim, and he was from Al-Shaam [Greater Syria.] Because Al-Shaam was under the rule of the Byzantinian Romans at that time, he was killed, and i think this was one of the reasons why the expedition of Tabuk or Mu'tah took place. wa Allaahu a'lam.


We also know that Heraclius wanted to become muslim [the famous hadith of Abu Sufyan] and its mentioned in Ibn Iss-haaq that he called his people (the priests etc.) and he told them that he believes in the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him.) Then there was a big noise and Heraclius told Abu Sufyan (who was none muslim at that time) to leave. Heraclius feared for his life and loved his kingdom too much so he told them that he was just jesting and testing their faith in Jesus (peace be upon him) as they were christians at that time.


Al-Najaashi of Al-Habasha [Ethiopia] was also a formal christian, he became muslim, and he concealed his faith because his priests became angry and may have overthrown him (when Al-Najaashi said that he agrees with the message Ja'afar ibn abi Talib [the cousin of Rasool Allaah] recited to him. - i.e. Surah Maryam)

However we know that without a doubt he became muslim due to the hadith of the janaaza [the prayer of funeral] of someone who isn't in the same location as the one who performs the prayer. [When the Messenger of Allaah and the muslims in Medina performed janaaza for him even though they were in Medina.]


So we see that not just the normal people got harmed for leaving the religion of their rulers, but even the ruler himself could be overthrown if he left the religion. So by actually having authority in the land, the muslims are allowing people to make their own choice of following their scripture or accepting islaam without having the threat of being persecuted for becoming muslim.



I heard all this from The Seerah [biography] of the Messenger of Allaah, Muhammad (peace be upon him) by Bashar Shala.

http://www.pleasantviewschool.com/me...t%20%28pbuh%29



And Allaah Almighty knows best.

[Bittersteel]

Brenton,it was the personal ambition of leaders.Conquest,empire building were common things at that time.some leaders were good and just,others had too much greed.

[brenton]

Brenton,it was the personal ambition of leaders.Conquest,empire building were common things at that time.some leaders were good and just,others had too much greed.

Hardly something only for Muslims!

It just seems so opposite to me: the message of Muhammad vs. the Umayyad dynasty.

[Malaikah]

It was interesting that conquered peoples were not forced to become Muslim, as the Qu'ran forbids it from what I heard. That's why your response puzzles me. It seems to me that empire building is against a couple of Qu'ran principles.

Why does it puzzle you?

Also, the purpose must be strictly for the sake of Allah, the spread the word of Islam, overthrow oppressive rulers etc. Conquering for the purpose of fame/land/wealth is strictly forbidden, as is forcing people to convert to Islam. But there is no doubt certain circumstances where there is only one practical opinion, and that is war.

[Abu_Jihad]

Listen lets not get history all mixed up here for a moment? This rubbish, islam spread the religion by the sword is ludicrous, for one simple reason? Why would someone who is a caliph, recieving a penalty tax from indigenous populations want too ruin his income and wealth? i know i wouldn't and i would prefer if they stayed non-muslim for the sake of revenue raising...i know that's not the politically correct thing too say, but hey it's a fact...Humans are greedy regardless of religion...

[Malaikah]

^What?! What proof do you have for that? I recall one specific incident when the people choose the tax over accepting Islam and the Muslim involved explicitly expressed his disappointment! And even if they did become Muslim they would have to pay zakat anyway!

[Abu_Jihad]

Listen, the caliph's as much as i admire them and everything..im just looking at it from a common sense approach...i have no factual evidence regarding this, im just saying if i was in their shoes, i wouldn't convert anyone too islam for my wealth gain, why it's not because im a bad muslim as such...It's because wealth would be on my top priority....and lets be real for one second, allah didn't create hell for nothing..someone has too fill it...

ps: im sorry if i sould rude, but im just fairly straight forward

[Malaikah]

Maybe wealth is YOUR priority but the priority of a Muslim is pleasing Allah!!

Did you know that Abu Bakr gave ALL HIS WEALTH as charity to the prophet?? And he was the first Caliph. If you honestly think money is what they cared about then you know nothing about them.

and lets be real for one second, allah didn't create hell for nothing..someone has too fill it...

What?? Is that what worries you? Making sure the hellfire wont go empty? Well trust me, it wont. That doesn't mean we shouldn't save as many people as we can!

[Abu_Jihad]

Well can you refute the irrefutable fact? Did God create hell for a purpose? of course he did, somebody must occupy it? and if the whole world is muslim then it defeats the purpose of the creation of hell? and maybe that's how the caliph saw it when they didn't force conversion on the indigenous populations...

At least im not a hypocritical muslim like so many around, some act like they are saints from heaven, but are alcoholic wife bashing lunatics...at least i don't pretend like most muslims..i have weaknesses and i don't hide that fact...

[Abu_Jihad]

I would never preach too anyone my religion, i just don't see the point...some are saved and some are not...im not saying i am, im not exactly what you could call an ideal muslim, but nevertheless i am muslim and i don't need to grow a beard and show off about it unlike some..