why were the sahabs battles against the persians legitimate?
isn't islam about peace? then why did the early muslims declare war on persia, when persia never attacked them? in todays world wouldn't what the early muslims did be called an act of agression? why they invaded a sovereign state.
and if the case is, they didn't want islam to be taught in their kingdom, then isn't that type of jihad over, since islam can be found everywhere?
im confused help me out here.
No. It's about submission to the will of God. At times submission entails being peaceful, and at other times it demands that one be violent.Originally Posted by seafood
They declared war on them because they were not Muslim. They fought to raise the name of Allah.
Yes, in todays world it would be called an act of agression. They invaded a soverign state because the only real soverign power in this universe is Allah. They did not have a peace agreement with them, so they attacked them to spread Islam. Jihad (offensive warfare) is also known in Islamic literature as "Dawah by the sword." (it's not the same as conversion by the sword .. conversions are a result of dawah).
The point of the type of jihad the early muslims waged was not to get permission to preach in another country. Never did they say that war can be averted if only they were allowed permission to preach. The conditions were simple .. either accept Islam, or willingly surrender by paying jizya (non-muslim tax) and be controlled by the Islamic state .. or else prepare for battle. The point was to destroy non-muslim bases of power, so that Islam had dominance in the region/known-world. Mufti Taqi Uthmani explains this very clearly in his writings.
It's simple .. in the early days of Islam and even for centuries thereafter .. there were many conquests. They went out and conquered other countries in order to further Islam. Simple. Read any 'ol history book. How do you think the Islamic empire streched from Africa to China? Hadhrat Umar (RA) was one of the most successful conquerors, and under him the Islam empire grew stretching from Tunisia to Afghanistan.
this is very interesting, so your telling me that islam can not cohabit on this earth with another world power?
The classical understanding is that it can cohabit with another power, but eventually Islam will have to destroy other world powers in order to raise the name of Allah upon this entire earth. In fact, right now after an Islamic state conquers a country (or within the Islamic state itself), the citizens are allowed to remain upon their (false) religion by paying something called jizya. However, there will come a time, when Hadhrat Isa (AS) comes back .. when jizya will not be accepted from anyone. There will only be two choices for the non-muslims, Islam or you-know-what. Here are some quotes from Mufti Taqi Uthmani's writings:
".... Therefore, one of the most important purposes of jihad is the destruction of the dominance of Kufr - so that those mental barriers to the Truth which are due to the dominance of Kufr are broken, and the acceptance of truth becomes easy. As long as Kufr has dominance and awe, peoples' hearts will be effected and in awe by this, and will not fully accept the Truthful religion. Hence, jihad will continue.
<Quotes Quran Taubah:29>
"Here, fighting has been ordered until the Kuffar have been subjugated (belittled) into paying jizya. If the purpose of fighting was limited to having the freedom in their countries to propagate the religion freely, then the Quran would have said 'until they give the permission for dawah'. But making jizya mandatory and with that their subjugation having been mentioned, proved clearly that the purpose is to break the Kufr dominance [physical, and idealogical].
[He then quotes Imam Razi on exactly what the purpose for Jizya is. It's not some Zakat substitute as some would like to pass it off as nowadays. The philosophy is quite different ..]
"The purpose of Jizya is not to allow Kafirs to remain upon Kufr. Rather it is to save the Kafir from death and allow him to live for a period of time during which we hope he will observe the strong evidences for Islam and will be more likely to accept it. He will observe the honor and might of Islam, evidences in Islams favor, and will see the disgrace and defeat of Kufr - it is obvious that these things will encourage him towards Islam. In reality, the purpose of Jizya is this."
"And for which purpose 'iqtidari' jihad was permissible then, it is permissible now too. It cannot be abandoned just because so called 'peaceful' states who have invented atomic weapons label it as 'expansionism' ... Those same people turn their faces towards the effects of their imposed slavery upon the majority of Asia and Africa - whose bodies are still bruised and reeling from the effects.
"And, forgive me for saying this, it also seems that it is from the same branch of the Kufr dominance that people have based their standards of good and bad on the propaganda which makes what is false, true, and what is true, false - and brainwashes people with it. And the brainwashing is successful to the extent that, forget about the Kuffar, our own Muslims have stooped to the level of being apologetic about the injunctions of their religion. If breaking such a dominance of falsehood comes under 'expansionism', then we should embrace this term with full confidence. We should not stand in front of objectioners with our hands tied and say that when you agreed to 'iqtidami' warfare we also agreed with it and acted upon it, and when you have in your books - and only in your books - said that it is bad - and only *said* it was bad - then we will also make it haraam upon ourselves.
The above was writen in response to a letter. The questioner was asking about the purposes of jihad .. and claimed that there is no need for jihad as long as other countries give permission for muslims to practice their religion within their countries and to propagate Islam there. Basically, he was saying that jihad can only be considered if the non-muslim country bans the preaching and practice of Islam within their country. He also claimed that nowadays expansionist policies are looked down upon by the world, and hence Islam should also refrain from it - as it is not the current status quo. It is to these comments Mufti Taqi Uthmani wrote the above response (I only translated a small part of the 8 page reply), and ended it with these words ...
"It is impossible for this na-cheez (worthless thing / nothing) to agree with your stance."
so my question is how can you believe in such things while you live in the west?
ps have you got a msn we could talk much quicker.
I'm merely stating what the scholars have said regarding this. The history of Islam is filled with conquest .. how could anyone deny this? Even a cursory reading of history will make this as clear as daylight.
How can you believe that women should be veiled, while this is viewed as oppression and subjugation of women by the west?
How can you believe that slavery is (or was at any point in time) correct, when it is viewed as cruel by the west?
How can you believe that there should be capital punishment for adultery while this is condered barbaric by the west?
How can you believe that a thief's hands should be chopped off while this is also considered to be barbaric by the west?
How can you believe that a person should be killed just for changing his religion from Islam to something else (there is absolute consensus upon this issue btw) while this is considered to be a horrendous transgression of the man made "universal declaration of human rights."
The answer to all of the above is simple. Allah and his Messenger (SAW) define good and bad, what is to be encouraged, and what is to be discouraged. Our standards of morality are divinely guided .. while the rest of humanity either has adultered with original divine teachings, or has abitrarily created them based upon the limitations of their aql (intelligence). So, the bottom line is that Islam is correct in its entireity, regardless of what other cultures, religions, or philosophies may say. So, if Islam and the west happen to be in conflict on some issues .. it does not undermine Islamic teachings in any way.
Islam (submission) is derived from a root, s-l-m, which primarily conveys the meaning of security. The answer to your questions can be derived from an understanding, joined to reflection, of the meanings of these words.
With peace
this is not what im asking, you from your previous posts have said that islams whole objective is to rule the world, then such an ideology holds that you must want the destruction of the america and china. right now as you speak.... looooooooool brother i think you need to take a shower calm down for a second and then go and read some decent literture about this topic.
not just wars...
muslims can also conquer the world by da'wah and not just wars, this is why we are living in the west to show them the way of islam. There are many ways of doing jihad, sometimes fighting and sometimes talking are just a few examples, but the ultimate aim is to declare ALLAHS name the highest!!
so why was that first battle legitimate
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks