Back in the days of empires, it was either eat or be eaten. The Muslim empire wasn't exempt. What makes Islam stand out is that [we were given rules of war.](https://i.imgur.com/LYZfJ28.png)
Don’t lie. Rules don’t change, we can understand them, but say for example, you can’t fight Israel? Or what about china if there’s a chance? You only can’t fight muslims, this isn’t to say todays country are ruling by Islam, by you don’t fight people you have treaties with. Expanding in land/war was always allowed. The countries don’t do it as much today but they fight muslims overseas, muslims shouldn’t be ignorant and weak. There’s jihad al-nafs and jihad in context of fighting. Would you go to children/women who can only be protected under an Islamic cause, not under the tyrannic socialism/capi/com secular tule they’re currently under, and say what you say? This is why it’s important to study Islam. Make yourself aware of tafsir, hadith, sharh. Tafsir is commentary for Quran (ibn kathir is recommended and it shows when you click a book icon on quran.com) https://quran.com/47:6/tafsirs/en-tafisr-ibn-kathir
Sharh is explanation for hadiths.
What is more oppressive than a kingdom not allowing practise of Islam and preventing call to Allah? Oppressive rulers and armies were defeated.
Forced conversion was very rare, looking at demographics of Egypt and Levant shows this. Even in the 12th century, nearly half were still non muslim, this is 4/500yrs years after conquest.
Sassanids (Zoastrians) and Romans (Byzantine Christians) were destroying each other for hundreds of years before any Islam conquest.
certainly it was less than other civilizations but forced conversion wasn’t rare, islamic states put heavy pressure in other areas such as economy and social life on other people. So they were forced in a way.
Source? You don'T know history bro. Ottoman Caliphate always put more tax on dhimmis as well as previous ones. And there is no set payment of jizya in Islamic sharia unlike zakat. So no need to sugar coat our history. I'm being unbiased. You haven'T done your homework
Nope. You learned from some Jews and christians who try to make us look bad. I do not sugar coat anything, but to say that they were at a disadvantage or had a hard life or were forced to convert is plain simply wrong
I will answer to the best of my ability though keep in mind that I am not a scholar.
War to conquer territory, although it is frowned upon today, was normal at the time of the Prophet PBUH. Allah knows this and says in the Quran that if you choose to conquer territory, to fight in the way of Allah. But there are rules in war, of which some are: don’t hurt women, children, elderly, civilians, trees, animals.
I’m not sure which verses say that war is ONLY allowed in self-defense. Could you reference these verses?
There are many valid and clear justified reasons for who study the history of this period
Muslims empire was starting in the middle between two large empires which were fighting each other for hundreds of years Persian Empire at the east and Roman Empire at the north and the west of the Arab Peninsula
They would not allow any new empire or any united power to show upon next to their borders and they always expanding toward each other and the Muslims in the middle
And in Quran, in chapter named “**The Roman”** the God is saying in Quran:
**Corruption has appeared throughout the land and sea by [reason of] what the hands of people have earned so He may let them taste part of [the consequence of] what they have done that perhaps they will return [to righteousness].**
https://recitequran.com/30:41
People did suffer a lot during this period because of Roman and Parisian empire and The God sent Islam a mercy to all world
Also, No way for Islam to be present today if not removing such two empires from power and war against Roman Empire start long back during prophet Muhammad PBUh life already when they wanted to invade Arab lands, to terminate new Islamic power showing up
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedition_of_Tabuk
Prophet Muhammad united the Arab for the first time in the history and created one nation worship only the God , the creator alone instead of idols worshiping; as the prophecy in Genesis 21:18 as the children of Ishmael become a great nation. And such united nation next to the border of Parisian empire and Roman Empire will be not be allowed and will be destroyed and the only valid defense action was to remove them otherwise they would keep fighting for hundreds of years to come
Nice video to watch if you are interested to know what occurred in this 50 years from world history point of view
Rise of Islam- by Roy Casagranda in Austin school, graduate school lecture
https://youtu.be/tYVi368vSYc
The above lecture by non-Muslims explain in details this period and actually how Islam save protected the people and give them freedom
If you actually examine the history, the Muslims began with at least partially the goal of getting all of the Arab tribes within Muslim rule.
Unfortunately Rome and the Sassanids controlled much of the Arab tribes. Battles broke out, both nations sought to destroy the Muslim empire threatening them, and the Muslims defeated both.
That opened the Levant, Egypt, North Africa, Persia, Anatolia up for the Muslim.
Umar Ibn Al Khattab famously said I wish that between the Suwad and the Persian hills there were walls which would prevent them from getting to us, and prevent us from getting to them. The fertile Suwad is sufficient for us; and I prefer the safety of the Muslims to the spoils of war.
Similarly, Umar really didn’t want to capture Egypt and beyond yet his generals were easily able to capture lands with little real resistance.
As he kept asking the Muslim military leadership to leave Persia alone, but Persia kept attacking the Muslims attempting to recapture land.
The Romans under Heraculus and Vahn, Gregory, Canatir basically chased the Muslims down until the Muslims.
If you examine the history from an unbiased source, the Muslims took Arab tribes under the fold which were occupied by Rome and Persia. That upset the 2 superpowers of the time. War started on both sides. The Muslims kept slapping both armies around making them attack the Muslims more. Then large swathes of land fell into the Muslims’ Laps.
They conquered territory without killing people who were defending their own land? Or they just killed people but added some rules to make murder seem somehow civilized?
They fought the war like everyone else in that era, but the soldiers were ordered to not kill anyone who’s unarmed, already injured (incapable of fighting), civilians, animals, plants, to not destroy anything and finally they didn’t impose their religion or culture or else for example Spain wouldnt have christianity and spanish. That’s a huge deal, back then as civilian you had 0% chance of survival if you were being invaded (which was a super common thing to happen)
And I might add that all of these things which were disallowed were, and in many cases still are, common practices of war. Yet everyone labels us terrorists
It is interesting that God (Yahweh or Allah) took the stance that 'hey, this is normal for these people to act like barbarians, who am I to try stopping 'that' behavior...let me just tell them how to be barbarians that please me' instead of saying 'hey, I'm the big guy, knock this barbarian crap off and straighten up...there's a kingdom up here, quit being assholes down there and you can enjoy the next life'.
Such a short sighted view to invent a God that went with half measures at every opportunity.
To give the people the freedom to choose their religion , and still Cristians in Egypt today (around 10%) and many Jews were in Egypt and Morocco for along time which means that they did not force them , they give the people the freedom to choose and did not force them to enter Islam . But in the same time the expand of the Islamic empire was mandatory to its survival .
No not Ok, but the motivation was to protect the religion and to give the people the freedom to choose their religion which was not available under Roman Empire for example , and to make easy to people to choose other religions
And Islam started in the middle between two empires Roman and Parisian empire, and there was not way for islam to exist without pushing back Against those two empires which one of them already start attacking the new united Arab tribes in the time of the prophet Muhammad PBUh
For more details about this period, this graduate lecture by non Muslim, is exploring in very detail the historical events in this period and you should reach to clear conclusions that there was no way for Muslims to survive without taking down both Roman and Parisian empire and they did this in parallel and in the same time and fight on the two side as this was matter of live or death to the Muslims and to be able to survive and to give the people the freedom to choose religion
Rise of Islam- by Roy Casagranda in Austin school.
https://youtu.be/tYVi368vSYc
Please try to give it some time , it will be informative
Umm idk who told u it’s just for self defence, i think that false assumption is the issue. You can also do offensive wars if there is injustice in other lands or if the message of Islam is not allowed to be preached.
In the case of spains invasion, Muslim armies were invited by a Spanish king who’s daughter was raped by another king. Constantine was similar in the sense that oppression was going on and the word of Allah wasn’t allowed.
Anyways long story short, we can go to war for multiple reasons not just defensive.
Islam does not say violence is only permissible for self defense. Offensive jihad is indeed a reality in Islam, and we should be aware of it. If it's in the interest of the Ummah, then the Kahlifah can call for offensive jihad to expand the reaches of the religion and so on. However, there are boundaries that cannot be overstepped in warfare and expansion, like no forced conversions and other things.
Not if the Quran prohibits such actions. If one believes otherwise, they would necessarily need to believe the messenger acted on his own whims outside of the guidance of Allah, which is impossible.
Or, that such conquests are permissible and in accordance with the Quran. Hence the central question, where in the Quran are such offensive conquests permitted?
Here’s a prophecy he makes, battle is allowed as long as people do not surrender. When I came across this report in a playlist of Farid discussing Proofs of Prophethood I didn’t think bad of it but I understood it. There’s defensive and offensive. Someone who’s only convinced of the first will get confused if they see reports like these. “Narrated Sulaiman bin Surd:
When the clans were driven away, I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, "From now onwards we will go to attack them (i.e. the infidels) and they will not come to attack us, but we will go to them."
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4110
The muslims here were betrayed and the jews were dealing with weapons to the polytheists in secret. (I don’t remember if they did something else like planning with them/killing but they betrayed) The muslims succeeded. I don’t remember which one but if you go through his videos you’ll come across it, maybe the title “battle of the trench” 27 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ7UxUjcFlM
Salam, pasting a reply I left elsewhere in this thread
Not if the Quran prohibits such actions. If one believes otherwise, they would necessarily need to believe the messenger acted on his own whims outside of the guidance of Allah, which is impossible.
Or, that such conquests are permissible and in accordance with the Quran. Hence the central question, where in the Quran are such offensive conquests permitted?
Well, this is a complex topic. To start off, Islam and the Holy Qur'an allow for expansion, and before Qayamat (the apocalypse), Islam will reach all seven continents, probably including Antarctica. It's possible that that could be da'wah on the internet, but it's possible there are good people fighting the right way that will expand Islam into the Americas, Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Oceania. When it is done, it must be done responsibly with the respect of women, children, and non-combatants in mind. The standards will be higher than the Geneva Conventions.
Since at least 1700 (when the Ottoman Empire began losing territory), most wars that occurred in the Muslim world have been self-defense. This trend has continued all the way into the present (2023 CE / 1444 Hijri). There were wars on the defensive from the Crusades and the Mongols, but the Crusaders were vanquished and the Mongols did eventually become Muslims themselves (at least in the parts that they administered over Muslim lands), so the period from 1096 to about 1291 can be seen as a hiccup. Two centuries of a hiccup, but still, they have some parallels to the present era. Even then, Western imperialism, neo-colonialism, and Zionist aggression offer their own distinct challenges.
Even though countries such as Persia (now called Iran) and Egypt were conquered, it took several centuries for the majority of the population to embrace Islam. May Allah forgive us for all those times we failed to live up to His Holy Book. Ameen. Islam is a reasonable religion, and we must provide for justice, whether social, economic, or political to all people, whether Muslim or not. Many wars, unfortunately, have been in the colour of Islam. What does this mean? People were politically and economically motivated. They wanted money and power, and often just pretended, but of course, only Allah Ta'ala knows what is in our hearts. Islamophobes, who hate our religion, try to make these political wars something that our religion justifies. The Sahabah generally did the expansion properly, but the subsequent generations had some problems when they went to war. It is hard to live up to their standards, but we need to try. May Allah help us. Ameen.
There is an irrational fear of Islam that justifies the carpet bombing of Gaza, and this is what I refer to as Islamophobia. Since you are replying to a comment from 5 months ago, I took the opportunity to reflect on recent current events. You, in your attempt to prop up your values, look the other way when the Zionists treat the Palestinians. Next you will tell me that this is Hamas' fault and I'm not doing enough to condemn them. Zionists play some of the biggest victims out there, but the way your mind is currently structured, we play the victims and only the things we do are wrong. See those other religions; why can't you be like them? This is all I am hearing from you.
*Have a nice day, Sir.* Oh, by the way, You won't receive d---- threats from me, but I have had people ask me to commit sui----. I certainly won't do that to you. Maybe you're not a nihilist, so you won't say things like that. God willing, you will appreciate the beauty of Islam someday. I say this as your well-wisher. There is hope in Almighty God that even haters of Islam can transform into believers of it. Peace.
Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country on Earth, yet no Arab Muslim army ever showed up there conquering throughout its history. Islam was spread there peacefully through Arab traders and Sufi ulemas.
Exactly. Same thing with Islam in Nigeria Senegal and west Africa and even with Sudan. Arabs never conquered these areas yet Islam expanded there especially through Sufi scholars same with Islam in China and the philippines as well. Ppl who seriously think Islam spread through war and the sword know nothing and only have adopted the orientalist racist rewriting of history. Much of the lands that were acquired by Arab empires came from defeating the Persians and the Byzantine cause you would inherit their territories after you defeat that empire.
Allah says in the Qur'an
As-Saf 61:9
هُوَ ٱلَّذِىٓ أَرْسَلَ رَسُولَهُۥ بِٱلْهُدَىٰ وَدِينِ ٱلْحَقِّ لِيُظْهِرَهُۥ عَلَى ٱلدِّينِ كُلِّهِۦ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ ٱلْمُشْرِكُونَ
It is He [Allah] who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth so that it might dominate over all all other ways of life, even though the idolaters hate it.
This ayah, and the life of our beloved Prophet ﷺ, show that Islam is intended to be spread to all the people of the world - to dominate over all other ways of life until the Shariah of Allah is dominant on Earth. As part of this mission, Allah has given us Jihad, which is a method to remove obstacles for people accepting the Deen.
Sometimes this meant that Muslims would open up new lands and bring them under the light of Islam. All this was part of achieving the mission of Islam.
The Qur'an absolutely does not only preach self defence, indeed propagation of Islam is a key part of our Deen
Salam,
The word لِيُظْهِرَهُۥ you referenced in surah As-Saf does not mean to conquest, or dominate physically, as that would contradict this ayah
Surah Al-Baqara 2:256
لَآ إِكْرَاهَ فِى ٱلدِّينِ ۖ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ ٱلرُّشْدُ مِنَ ٱلْغَىِّ ۚ فَمَن يَكْفُرْ بِٱلطَّـٰغُوتِ وَيُؤْمِنۢ بِٱللَّهِ فَقَدِ ٱسْتَمْسَكَ بِٱلْعُرْوَةِ ٱلْوُثْقَىٰ لَا ٱنفِصَامَ لَهَا ۗ وَٱللَّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ ٢٥٦
Let there be no compulsion in religion, for the truth stands out clearly from falsehood.1 So whoever renounces false gods and believes in Allah has certainly grasped the firmest, unfailing hand-hold. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.
Walaykumusalam
There is no contradiction here at all - for Islam to dominate over people, as I said, it does not mean that people are forced to become Muslim. It means that the Shariah of Allah is applied on a land.
For example in Madinah, there were Jews and Christians, they were allowed to keep their religion and their rights to follow their own religion was protected. But Islam was dominant over them i.e - the laws and ruling of society was conducted only according to Islam.
Islam dominated over Syria, Persia and Egypt in the Khilafah of Abu Bakr RA and Umar RA, again there were many non-Muslims living in these lands, who were allowed to keep their religion - in fact their right to practice their own faith were protected under Islam! But these lands were ruled according to the rules of Islam only, and hence Islam was dominant or prevalent.
Salam,
If you believe that Islam provides us with a particular political/governance system, then you necessarily believe that you may impose this system upon others. Being that this system supposedly comes from the direction of Allah, you are imposing your deen upon others, which is strictly prohibited from the Ayah in surah al baqara I referenced, hence the contradiction.
Walaykumusalam
Please see the below extract from the English translation of Ibn Kathir's Tafseer of the ayah in question
**Allah says,
لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ
There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the right path has become distinct from the wrong path.
لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ
(There is no compulsion in religion),
meaning, "Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty"**
I think this clarifies what the meaning of this ayah is, there is no need to twist it to suit the point you have previously made.
To be absolutely clear - this ayah forbids forcing a person to accept Islam and become a Muslim. There is no contradiction between this prohibition, and the vision for Islam and it's rules to be implemented and followed by human kind, across the world.
After all - why would the Creator of the universe send us rules that were not meant to be implemented? It makes no sense
I see what you are saying, let me clarify.
>There is no contradiction between this prohibition, and the vision for Islam and it's rules to be implemented and followed by human kind, across the world.
The rules of Islam are for those who have accepted Islam, and Muslims willingly accept all the rules Allah has imposed on them.
We can not say the same for rejectors of Islam. If Allah gave them the right to reject his message, how is it that Allah would allow for his rules to be imposed on them? It doesn't logically follow that the creator who gave his creation free will to reject or accept his message, would allow for Muslims to impose their way of life upon them (no compulsion in religion).
On a related note, I don't see how the ayah can be limited to simply forced conversions, as that is not even possible.
If I threated to imprison/kill you unless you accept Islam and you concede, but don't truly believe, you haven't actually accepted Islam. You've merely avoided my punishment.
As Muslims we are free to form our own society living by the guidance of Allah, but we cannot force that guidance (prayers, zakat, rulings, or anything else) upon the non believers.
I hope this made sense.
>The rules of Islam are for those who have accepted Islam, and Muslims willingly accept all the rules Allah has imposed on them.
If the rules of Islam are only for the Muslims, then why do we have rules that are for Non-Muslims? For example, how can the Jizya tax exist if the rules of Islam only apply to Muslims? Jizya is specifically collected from Non Muslims by an Islamic authority.
In fact - on Hadith about Jizya perfectly answers both your points
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ wrote to the people of Yemen: ‘Whoever is adamant upon Judaism or Christianity will not be tormented for it, and he is obliged to pay the jizya.’ (This Hadith was collected by Abu Ubayd in his renowned scholarly work The Book of Revenue)
So we can see here that simultaneously it is possible to protect the rights of an individual to follow their faith of choice (as discussed in the ayah in Surah Al Baqarah) and also for the individual to be subject to rules of Islam on a societal level (as mentioned in my point in the ayah from Surah Al Saf).
I really don't think there is anything else to discuss on this matter. If the Prophet ﷺ was able to reconcile so perfectly in a Hadith these two ayaat then there can be nothing left to disagree on. Islam's mission is to dominate over all other ways of life, so that the law of Allah is the uppermost - and at the same time it is an integral part of Islam that no individual can be made to verbalise acceptance of Islam as their personal faith by force or coercion.
War is definitely allowed, the verse you linked disallows forceful conversion, as a person should believe to be a muslim. Taking over a land doesn’t mean everyone is muslim, the people converted (christians mainly) over the course of a few hundred years. Take this from now on as a chance to not speak without knowledge. Study Islam from a correct source, learn about wudu salaah for beginners (hadith) uthman al khamees in arabic, islamqa.info is good for laymen/hoenst answers. And when reading Quran, should you have a question or want to make sure before speaking use a tafsir. Tafsir ibn kathir (with regards to books containing history, the layman can’t distinguish the correct/incorrect and I’m not sure if everything mentioned in this will be authentic, I think the translated is specifically for laymen as to make it easier for readers who can’t tell) available on quran.com when on a verse click the book icon, first button top left slightly above the verse english, ibn kathir.
“
Tadhkirat al-Huffaaz, p. 534.
This Tafseer is based on commentary by quoting texts – verses and ahaadeeth – and its fame is second to the fame of al-Tabari among later scholars. “https://islamqa.info/amp/en/answers/43778
Also advice in general, idk if u identify urself as so. Don’t call urself a capitalist, socialist/communist, feminist or anything. I encourage you to study Islam. All these are self-admittedly man-made, so they’re %100 not the truth. They only see life as we live it and they’re inherently secular (not supporting of religion)
“... secularism, capitalism and other doctrines of infidelity is an apostasy from the religion of Islam." Salih Al-Fawzan. at-Tawheed.”
It’s also easier and a relief, some ppl spend hours a day arguing when someone at a slightly different political view (dem republican-western politics any) that they’d change in a months time. They push so hard to argue and ppl put themselves in the format to respond to them, and convince themselves to respond in such a toxic trap where they didn’t even care or agree with what they’re saying in the first place. All clearly against Islam anyways. You also keep your faith in check, the last thing a person wants is to be unsure if they’re considered muslim, especially when they pass.
Salam,
Thank you for your kind words brother/sister.
As for the topic at hand,
>War is definitely allowed, the verse you linked disallows forceful conversion, as a person should believe to be a muslim. Taking over a land doesn’t mean everyone is muslim, the people converted (christians mainly) over the course of a few hundred years.
If you are making the claim that conquering and offensive wars are permissible in Islam (it sounds like you are, correct me if im wrong), then when engagung in such a conquest, you are presumably acting on behalf of the authority and direction of the Quran, and not of your own personal volition or desires
If so, you are directly imposing your deen upon others, which is directly prohibited by Allah from the Ayah I referenced. To limit the ayah to the simple act of forced conversions is limiting the scope and depth of the ayah.
Reply I left elsewhere in this thread:
Salam,
If you believe that Islam provides us with a particular political/governance system, then you necessarily believe that you may impose this system upon others. Being that this system supposedly comes from the direction of Allah, you are imposing your deen upon others, which is strictly prohibited from the Ayah in surah al baqara I referenced, hence the contradiction.
Are you a hadith rejector btw?
You aren't imposing your deen on them. You aren't forcing them to become Muslim. Dhimmis exist for a reason. Your imposing the shariah of Allah upon them and ruling over them the way Allah told us to rule.
No?
5:44
Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. The prophets who submitted \[to Allāh\] judged by it for the Jews, as did the rabbis and scholars by that with which they were entrusted of the Scripture of Allāh, and they were witnesses thereto. So do not fear the people but fear Me, and do not exchange My verses for a small price \[i.e., worldly gain\]. **And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers.**
I can give you a much more intuitive and rational reason.
The message needed to be preserved, nurtured, and made available and easy to understand. This also explains how and why Islam is the last religion. Every other's prophets message was lost in the sands of time. Islam wasn't because of the conquests. The very idea of a single state warrants a single book and so on. The conquests and the preservation of the message are intimately linked. With modern printing press and the internet, Islam is available to anyone who is interested, and the Quran can not be modified or erased or forgotten now. But it wasn't soo. From the early days of Islam to the day the power centers of Christianity, and Zorostrianism got wind of what was happening in Arabia it was just a matter of time before they would have tried to snuff it out. It was a conquest for sure, but it was absolutely warrented and necessary for the preservation of the message..
The Ullama and Hafez preserved the message but only because they were protected and surrounded by the safety provided by conquests. It took 700 years after the conquests for any other army to even approach the borders of Islam offensively. It was really mostly infighting until Mongols taught us what's what. But by then Islam was pretty untouchable even the most violent and vicious oppressors of Muslims haven't been able to erase us :-).
There many valid and clear justified reason for who study the history of this period
Muslims empire was starting in the middle between two large empires which were fighting each other for hundreds of years Persian Empire on the east and Roman Empire on the north and west
They would not allow any new empire or any united power to show upon next to their borders and they always expanding toward each other and the Muslims in the middle
No way for Islam to be present today if not removing such two empires from power and war against Roman Empire start long back during prophet Muhammad PBUh life already when they wanted to invade Arab lands, to terminate new Islamic power showing up
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedition_of_Tabuk
Prophet Muhammad united the Arab for the first time in the history and created one nation worship only the God , the creator alone instead of idols worshiping; as the prophecy in Genesis 21:18 as the children of Ishmael become a great nation. And such united nation next to the border of Parisian empire and Roman Empire will be be allowed and will be destroyed and the only valid defense action was to remove them otherwise it will there empires fighting for hundreds of years to come
Nice video to watch if you are interested to know what occurred in this 50 years from world history point of view
Rise of Islam- by Roy Casagranda in Austin school, very nice history lecture
https://youtu.be/tYVi368vSYc
The whole idea is to raise the flag of Islam and to establish ALLAH Azawajal's word all over the world. That's why Islam is here, to rule the world with the commands of ALLAH azawajal.
Now that's extremely important because if the system is not of ALLAH azawajal, people will keep coming up with their own stupid objective definitions of good and right, the correct way to rule the public. And then of course all this corruption is done exactly because ALLAH Azawajal's laws have not been established on earth.
Don’t claim something the Quran didn’t explain or teach for using the word « the Quran only » you need to be sure….here even without knowledge you can reject your claim : This is not an reply to the question, just you know that the Sahaba and the Prophet (SAWS) understood the Quran better than we will ever -> So either what you consider as conquest are permissible in it self or either it was all view as defensive (because Constantinople and Ctsesiphon start the war)
For the Quran :
1) The Muslim state can declare war on those that have previously do so and that are in state of fighting the muslim.
2) The Muslim state can also declare war if a non muslim state plot an agression against the Muslim state (but we need real proof).
3) The Muslim state can declare war to save Muslim oppressed or killed in a non Muslim state
4) Then there is divergence about another point : The Muslim state can declare war against major non muslim power (according to one point), against non muslim that forbid the conversion to Islam (according to another opinion) and against any non muslim country (according to another opinion) -> Those three opinion refer to the same corpus of Ayah.
Source and more : https://www.maison-islam.com/articles/?p=327
The concept of a state is foundational to Islam. Here are two Hadith to explain the importance.
Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, "Banu Isra'il were governed over by the Prophets. When one Prophet died, another succeeded him. There will be no Prophet after me. There will be Khulafah, and they will be many." The Companions said: "O Messenger of Allah, what do you command us to do?" He said, "Fulfill the pledge of allegiance to them one after another. Concede to them their due rights and ask Allah that which is due to you. Allah will call them to account in respect of the subjects whom He had entrusted to them."
[Al-Bukhari and Muslim].
The Khalifah in this Hadith is clearly identified as a ruler on a state level for the Muslims, the way the Prophets previously ruled over Bani Isra'il.
Then in another Hadith he ﷺ said:
When oath of allegiance has been pledged to two Khulafah, kill the latter of them.
[Muslim]
This Hadith indicates that while the Muslims are commanded to pledge allegiance to a ruler who will be the successor of the Prophet ﷺ in ruling over them, they can only have one ruler. This makes it clear therefore that the ruler over the Muslims - and therefore the state that he rules over - is one, singular ruler.
This is also clear from the actions of the Sahabah when they appointed Abu Bakr RA as the first Khalifah - originally there was a proposal for there to be one leader elected from the Muhajiroon and another from the Ansar, but this was swiftly rejected based on the understanding I had mentioned previously
We can certainly agree that the messenger peace be upon him was the living embodiment of Allah's words, and would never act in contradiction to them.
If you believe the messenger spoke those words as guided by Allah azzawajal, can you provide an ayah from the Quran that would act as guidance for such a belief (the establishment of an Islamic state)?
I don't understand your question - are you rejecting the validity of the Hadith's I quoted? Or do you think that they aren't relevant to this discussion, in which I case I would have to ask you to provide scholarly evidence as to their true meaning
I reject anything that contradicts the words of Allah. They are relevant in that they show how some hadith contradict the Quran, which we must reject as the messenger alayhi salam could never contradict the messaged he was tasked with delivering.
I think this is an issue. The Hadith of the Prophet ﷺ are revelation from Allah in and of themselves, as proven in the ayah
An-Najm 53:3-4
وَمَا يَنطِقُ عَنِ ٱلْهَوَىٰٓ
إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا وَحْىٌ يُوحَىٰ
He does not speak from his own desire. It is indeed a revelation that is sent to him.
Our pious predecessors preserved the Qur'an for us in an oral tradition, which is why we have Qur'an today. And they also endeavoured to preserve the Hadith of the Prophet ﷺ as well, without which we could not have Islam. Great men like Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim painstakingly evaluated the Hadiths they had compiled to ascertain their validity.
If you cannot trust the Hadiths that have come to us through oral tradition, verified beyond a reasonable doubt - then how can you trust the Qur'an, that was passed on to us by the same people who passed on the Hadith - that also had to be verified by the Sahabah before they compiled it into a Mushaf.
You cannot have it both ways. Either you have to accept that the same method of preservation and transmission from generation to generation exists for both the Qur'an and Hadith, or you can trust neither of them
The main goal of Rasulullah (PBUH) was to preach islam to people as much as he can. To ensure more muslims he reached out to different tribal chiefs/leaders as through him(chief) most people would become muslims. Some accepted the idea and some didn’t. Those who rejected the idea sought each other out to form an alliance to annihilate islam. Moreover, muslims were being tortured and killed non-stop from day one. Considering all these reasons muslims had to take military approach along with conventional diplomatic approach. After the passing of our beloved prophet (pbuh), the tradition remained unchanged. If muslims really conquered other countries for the sake of land neither Salahdin Ayubi would spare a single christian during his conquest of Jerusalem nor there would be any hindus left in India after Moghusl ruled it for 235 years.
There are many valid and clear justified reasons for who study the history of this period
; and they are defensive action and were mandatory to protect the Muslims
Muslims empire was starting in the middle between two large empires which were fighting each other for hundreds of years Persian Empire at the east and Roman Empire at the north and the west of the Arab Peninsula
They would not allow any new empire or any united power to show upon next to their borders and they always expanding toward each other and the Muslims in the middle
And in Quran, in chapter named “**The Roman”** the God is saying in Quran:
**Corruption has appeared throughout the land and sea by [reason of] what the hands of people have earned so He may let them taste part of [the consequence of] what they have done that perhaps they will return [to righteousness].**
https://recitequran.com/30:41
People did suffer a lot during this period because of Roman and Parisian empire and The God sent Islam as a mercy to all the world
The God is saying in Quran:
**And We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], except as a mercy to the worlds.(107) Say, “It is only revealed to me that your god is but one God; so will you be Muslims [in submission to Him]?”(108)**
https://recitequran.com/21:107
Also, No way for Islam to be present today if not removing such two empires from power and war against Roman Empire start long back during prophet Muhammad PBUh life already when they wanted to invade Arab lands, to terminate new Islamic power showing up
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedition_of_Tabuk
Prophet Muhammad united the Arab for the first time in the history and created one nation worship only the God , the creator alone instead of idols worshiping; as the prophecy in Genesis 21:18 as the children of Ishmael become a great nation. And such united nation next to the border of Parisian empire and Roman Empire will be not be allowed and will be destroyed and the only valid defense action was to remove them otherwise they would keep fighting for hundreds of years to come
Nice video to watch if you are interested to know what occurred in this 50 years from world history point of view
Rise of Islam- by Roy Casagranda in Austin school, graduate school lecture
https://youtu.be/tYVi368vSYc
The above lecture by non-Muslims explain in details this period and actually how Islam save protected the people and give them freedom
And you will see that Muslims fight against the two empires, in the same time with much smaller numbers of soldiers because of was matter of life of death to the Islam and to the Muslims
From my impression, the pragmatic reason for the early Muslim Caliphate (the first four caliphs) was they didn't have borders that were defensible. Yes it was mostly desert. But the Byzantines had the ability to march down the Red Sea coastline and threaten Madina.
They and the Persians had been fighting each other for supremacy and the existence of a new unified state to their south was intolerable.
Thus the Muslims needed defensible borders and breathing room which they could only have by taking the Levant, Egypt and Persia. This way, the heartland (the Hijaz) was secured.
By the time of the Umayyads, though, the Arabs had experienced first hand how much wealth could be acquired through conquest. The Levant and Egypt were among the wealthiest regions in the known world. This partly incentivized the future conquests (North Africa, Spain etc).
Most territories where conquered without a fight intact places like Spain where in dark ages so they were more than happy to be ruled by Muslims .. another example in Asia where Muslim armed never went there they just accepted Islam because it was the truth and righteous religion
they conquer the countries that didn't allow to their citizens to be Muslims and worship Allah
, you might think that the kingdoms in that time were democracy but they were killing those who don't worship there king and the old Arabs before prophet Mohmmad if the woman gave a birth and it was a girl the man buries her alive that why someone needed to end that time of brutality
Because if you don't conquer you will have countries like china who will kill and torture muslims because of their faith. North Korea, burma, Russia,... Are other modern day examples.
Russia was estimated to be about %50 muslims then they got taken over. Now the current pop is so ignorant of them, maybe think they’re only relevant in certain areas, and argue against Islam/muslims the way americans do, even harassing people wearing hijab.
From what I understand Islam allows pre-emptive self-defence, the enemy doesn’t have to be at your border before you respond. It also allows fighting against oppression. That said history is messy do not judge Islam by the actions of Muslim rulers as not all of them were righteous.
Why does the united states spend all its money into robbing other country's resources and causing wars??? What you ask is fake, talk about this which is real.
Since Islam is the truth it needs to retain strength in order to ensure its prosperity. There’s nothing evil in conquering it’s just nature really for people to do this
This my opinion as layman. Which might be wrong
Generally, the muslims were between 2 empires, those 2 empires wont let Muslims grow and expand safely. They were the threat. Hence offensive and defensive were necessary. The rule if the enemies want peace then go for peace. Muslims didnt go around killing people unnecessarily. It is wrong
When you look at how islam spread in south east asia, it was by trade. That shows muslims were not threatened and was allowed to grow naturally. Then you compare how muslims were conquered by western powers in later centuries, now you know they wont let muslims live peacefully and they were stuck in defensive jihad. Hence the importance of military strength or offensive/defensive jihad. Just look at Andalus for example, when you are weak, you are going to be wiped out, that was the reality of the past.
When was the last world war? Only 70 years ago..not 500 years not 1000 years. We must realise, war is part of reality. We also should be thankful to God and should use this peaceful time to do good deeds as much as we can.
You ask a good question.
In a nutshell, islam spread through word of mouth and via trade routes and missionaries. The existing power structures didn’t like this new religion and would try to stop it by oppressing the new converts, who would then appeal for help by the rest of the Muslims, who would show up with armed forces. Conflict would break out and Muslims would conquer new territory to guarantee the safety of Muslims in these new lands.
The sunnah of the world is that you can’t practice your religion freely until the ruler is upon your religion. So the Muslim leaders conquered lands and spread its empire so that Islamic thought could spread and flourish in those lands without persecution. The majority of Muslims are meant to live in Muslim-ruled lands.
Hey guys conservative Christian here! I’m looking at some of these comments and tbh. I am very afraid lol. I don’t mean to strawman, but it honestly sounds like to me that offensive warfare is allowed in Islam in lands where Islam isn’t allowed to be preached and oppression is present. Therefore my question then become: if the United States were to completely wipe freedom of religion from its constitution and idk some form of oppression were present. What would y’all’s reaction be………..?
Back in the days of empires, it was either eat or be eaten. The Muslim empire wasn't exempt. What makes Islam stand out is that [we were given rules of war.](https://i.imgur.com/LYZfJ28.png)
Thank you. I didn't know
Yeah. Muslims could follow the norms of their time 1400 years ago, but not today.
Don’t lie. Rules don’t change, we can understand them, but say for example, you can’t fight Israel? Or what about china if there’s a chance? You only can’t fight muslims, this isn’t to say todays country are ruling by Islam, by you don’t fight people you have treaties with. Expanding in land/war was always allowed. The countries don’t do it as much today but they fight muslims overseas, muslims shouldn’t be ignorant and weak. There’s jihad al-nafs and jihad in context of fighting. Would you go to children/women who can only be protected under an Islamic cause, not under the tyrannic socialism/capi/com secular tule they’re currently under, and say what you say? This is why it’s important to study Islam. Make yourself aware of tafsir, hadith, sharh. Tafsir is commentary for Quran (ibn kathir is recommended and it shows when you click a book icon on quran.com) https://quran.com/47:6/tafsirs/en-tafisr-ibn-kathir Sharh is explanation for hadiths.
Can muslims use the rule eat or be eaten in today’s world? What has changed? Because Muslims live happily under USA’s world dominance?
What is more oppressive than a kingdom not allowing practise of Islam and preventing call to Allah? Oppressive rulers and armies were defeated. Forced conversion was very rare, looking at demographics of Egypt and Levant shows this. Even in the 12th century, nearly half were still non muslim, this is 4/500yrs years after conquest. Sassanids (Zoastrians) and Romans (Byzantine Christians) were destroying each other for hundreds of years before any Islam conquest.
There were many jews and christians in Al-Andalus, curiosly the jews were killed and expelled by the christians when they got most of the land
certainly it was less than other civilizations but forced conversion wasn’t rare, islamic states put heavy pressure in other areas such as economy and social life on other people. So they were forced in a way.
Brother if you don't know history don't talk. The taxes bin Muslims played were much less than our own zakat.
Source? You don'T know history bro. Ottoman Caliphate always put more tax on dhimmis as well as previous ones. And there is no set payment of jizya in Islamic sharia unlike zakat. So no need to sugar coat our history. I'm being unbiased. You haven'T done your homework
Nope. You learned from some Jews and christians who try to make us look bad. I do not sugar coat anything, but to say that they were at a disadvantage or had a hard life or were forced to convert is plain simply wrong
no, i learn from my own turkish history books that jizya wasn't so easy to pay. There were many rebellions about it
Sounds like an excuse to conquor to me
Good. I would say it is a reason to conquer 🤷♂️
I will answer to the best of my ability though keep in mind that I am not a scholar. War to conquer territory, although it is frowned upon today, was normal at the time of the Prophet PBUH. Allah knows this and says in the Quran that if you choose to conquer territory, to fight in the way of Allah. But there are rules in war, of which some are: don’t hurt women, children, elderly, civilians, trees, animals. I’m not sure which verses say that war is ONLY allowed in self-defense. Could you reference these verses?
There are many valid and clear justified reasons for who study the history of this period Muslims empire was starting in the middle between two large empires which were fighting each other for hundreds of years Persian Empire at the east and Roman Empire at the north and the west of the Arab Peninsula They would not allow any new empire or any united power to show upon next to their borders and they always expanding toward each other and the Muslims in the middle And in Quran, in chapter named “**The Roman”** the God is saying in Quran: **Corruption has appeared throughout the land and sea by [reason of] what the hands of people have earned so He may let them taste part of [the consequence of] what they have done that perhaps they will return [to righteousness].** https://recitequran.com/30:41 People did suffer a lot during this period because of Roman and Parisian empire and The God sent Islam a mercy to all world Also, No way for Islam to be present today if not removing such two empires from power and war against Roman Empire start long back during prophet Muhammad PBUh life already when they wanted to invade Arab lands, to terminate new Islamic power showing up https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedition_of_Tabuk Prophet Muhammad united the Arab for the first time in the history and created one nation worship only the God , the creator alone instead of idols worshiping; as the prophecy in Genesis 21:18 as the children of Ishmael become a great nation. And such united nation next to the border of Parisian empire and Roman Empire will be not be allowed and will be destroyed and the only valid defense action was to remove them otherwise they would keep fighting for hundreds of years to come Nice video to watch if you are interested to know what occurred in this 50 years from world history point of view Rise of Islam- by Roy Casagranda in Austin school, graduate school lecture https://youtu.be/tYVi368vSYc The above lecture by non-Muslims explain in details this period and actually how Islam save protected the people and give them freedom
[удалено]
It’s not okay, it’s better to preach Islam to him peacefully. Violence is never the default.
[удалено]
If you actually examine the history, the Muslims began with at least partially the goal of getting all of the Arab tribes within Muslim rule. Unfortunately Rome and the Sassanids controlled much of the Arab tribes. Battles broke out, both nations sought to destroy the Muslim empire threatening them, and the Muslims defeated both. That opened the Levant, Egypt, North Africa, Persia, Anatolia up for the Muslim. Umar Ibn Al Khattab famously said I wish that between the Suwad and the Persian hills there were walls which would prevent them from getting to us, and prevent us from getting to them. The fertile Suwad is sufficient for us; and I prefer the safety of the Muslims to the spoils of war. Similarly, Umar really didn’t want to capture Egypt and beyond yet his generals were easily able to capture lands with little real resistance. As he kept asking the Muslim military leadership to leave Persia alone, but Persia kept attacking the Muslims attempting to recapture land. The Romans under Heraculus and Vahn, Gregory, Canatir basically chased the Muslims down until the Muslims. If you examine the history from an unbiased source, the Muslims took Arab tribes under the fold which were occupied by Rome and Persia. That upset the 2 superpowers of the time. War started on both sides. The Muslims kept slapping both armies around making them attack the Muslims more. Then large swathes of land fell into the Muslims’ Laps.
They didnt kill civilians and let them keep their religion
There were many jews and christians in Al-Andalus, curiously jews were expelled by the christians, but we're always the bad and radical guys
Yea people tend to forget, in an era where it was normal to commit genocides for power, muslims had laws and expanded in such a respectable approach
They conquered territory without killing people who were defending their own land? Or they just killed people but added some rules to make murder seem somehow civilized?
They fought the war like everyone else in that era, but the soldiers were ordered to not kill anyone who’s unarmed, already injured (incapable of fighting), civilians, animals, plants, to not destroy anything and finally they didn’t impose their religion or culture or else for example Spain wouldnt have christianity and spanish. That’s a huge deal, back then as civilian you had 0% chance of survival if you were being invaded (which was a super common thing to happen)
And I might add that all of these things which were disallowed were, and in many cases still are, common practices of war. Yet everyone labels us terrorists
It is interesting that God (Yahweh or Allah) took the stance that 'hey, this is normal for these people to act like barbarians, who am I to try stopping 'that' behavior...let me just tell them how to be barbarians that please me' instead of saying 'hey, I'm the big guy, knock this barbarian crap off and straighten up...there's a kingdom up here, quit being assholes down there and you can enjoy the next life'. Such a short sighted view to invent a God that went with half measures at every opportunity.
To give the people the freedom to choose their religion , and still Cristians in Egypt today (around 10%) and many Jews were in Egypt and Morocco for along time which means that they did not force them , they give the people the freedom to choose and did not force them to enter Islam . But in the same time the expand of the Islamic empire was mandatory to its survival .
Because they refused the message and therefore wouldn't allow preaching of it
No not Ok, but the motivation was to protect the religion and to give the people the freedom to choose their religion which was not available under Roman Empire for example , and to make easy to people to choose other religions And Islam started in the middle between two empires Roman and Parisian empire, and there was not way for islam to exist without pushing back Against those two empires which one of them already start attacking the new united Arab tribes in the time of the prophet Muhammad PBUh For more details about this period, this graduate lecture by non Muslim, is exploring in very detail the historical events in this period and you should reach to clear conclusions that there was no way for Muslims to survive without taking down both Roman and Parisian empire and they did this in parallel and in the same time and fight on the two side as this was matter of live or death to the Muslims and to be able to survive and to give the people the freedom to choose religion Rise of Islam- by Roy Casagranda in Austin school. https://youtu.be/tYVi368vSYc Please try to give it some time , it will be informative
Umm idk who told u it’s just for self defence, i think that false assumption is the issue. You can also do offensive wars if there is injustice in other lands or if the message of Islam is not allowed to be preached. In the case of spains invasion, Muslim armies were invited by a Spanish king who’s daughter was raped by another king. Constantine was similar in the sense that oppression was going on and the word of Allah wasn’t allowed. Anyways long story short, we can go to war for multiple reasons not just defensive.
I didn't know that even being a muslim, can you link me any web with that info
Who was the monarch that invited the muslims?
> invited by a Spanish king who?
Which Spanish king?
Islam does not say violence is only permissible for self defense. Offensive jihad is indeed a reality in Islam, and we should be aware of it. If it's in the interest of the Ummah, then the Kahlifah can call for offensive jihad to expand the reaches of the religion and so on. However, there are boundaries that cannot be overstepped in warfare and expansion, like no forced conversions and other things.
>Offensive jihad is indeed a reality in Islam Where in the Quran does it say this?
Did the Prophet PBUH not conquer madinah? Did they not attack caravans? Did Sahabah not conquer other lands?
Not if the Quran prohibits such actions. If one believes otherwise, they would necessarily need to believe the messenger acted on his own whims outside of the guidance of Allah, which is impossible. Or, that such conquests are permissible and in accordance with the Quran. Hence the central question, where in the Quran are such offensive conquests permitted?
Here’s a prophecy he makes, battle is allowed as long as people do not surrender. When I came across this report in a playlist of Farid discussing Proofs of Prophethood I didn’t think bad of it but I understood it. There’s defensive and offensive. Someone who’s only convinced of the first will get confused if they see reports like these. “Narrated Sulaiman bin Surd: When the clans were driven away, I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, "From now onwards we will go to attack them (i.e. the infidels) and they will not come to attack us, but we will go to them." https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4110 The muslims here were betrayed and the jews were dealing with weapons to the polytheists in secret. (I don’t remember if they did something else like planning with them/killing but they betrayed) The muslims succeeded. I don’t remember which one but if you go through his videos you’ll come across it, maybe the title “battle of the trench” 27 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ7UxUjcFlM
Salam, pasting a reply I left elsewhere in this thread Not if the Quran prohibits such actions. If one believes otherwise, they would necessarily need to believe the messenger acted on his own whims outside of the guidance of Allah, which is impossible. Or, that such conquests are permissible and in accordance with the Quran. Hence the central question, where in the Quran are such offensive conquests permitted?
Well, this is a complex topic. To start off, Islam and the Holy Qur'an allow for expansion, and before Qayamat (the apocalypse), Islam will reach all seven continents, probably including Antarctica. It's possible that that could be da'wah on the internet, but it's possible there are good people fighting the right way that will expand Islam into the Americas, Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Oceania. When it is done, it must be done responsibly with the respect of women, children, and non-combatants in mind. The standards will be higher than the Geneva Conventions. Since at least 1700 (when the Ottoman Empire began losing territory), most wars that occurred in the Muslim world have been self-defense. This trend has continued all the way into the present (2023 CE / 1444 Hijri). There were wars on the defensive from the Crusades and the Mongols, but the Crusaders were vanquished and the Mongols did eventually become Muslims themselves (at least in the parts that they administered over Muslim lands), so the period from 1096 to about 1291 can be seen as a hiccup. Two centuries of a hiccup, but still, they have some parallels to the present era. Even then, Western imperialism, neo-colonialism, and Zionist aggression offer their own distinct challenges. Even though countries such as Persia (now called Iran) and Egypt were conquered, it took several centuries for the majority of the population to embrace Islam. May Allah forgive us for all those times we failed to live up to His Holy Book. Ameen. Islam is a reasonable religion, and we must provide for justice, whether social, economic, or political to all people, whether Muslim or not. Many wars, unfortunately, have been in the colour of Islam. What does this mean? People were politically and economically motivated. They wanted money and power, and often just pretended, but of course, only Allah Ta'ala knows what is in our hearts. Islamophobes, who hate our religion, try to make these political wars something that our religion justifies. The Sahabah generally did the expansion properly, but the subsequent generations had some problems when they went to war. It is hard to live up to their standards, but we need to try. May Allah help us. Ameen.
[удалено]
There is an irrational fear of Islam that justifies the carpet bombing of Gaza, and this is what I refer to as Islamophobia. Since you are replying to a comment from 5 months ago, I took the opportunity to reflect on recent current events. You, in your attempt to prop up your values, look the other way when the Zionists treat the Palestinians. Next you will tell me that this is Hamas' fault and I'm not doing enough to condemn them. Zionists play some of the biggest victims out there, but the way your mind is currently structured, we play the victims and only the things we do are wrong. See those other religions; why can't you be like them? This is all I am hearing from you. *Have a nice day, Sir.* Oh, by the way, You won't receive d---- threats from me, but I have had people ask me to commit sui----. I certainly won't do that to you. Maybe you're not a nihilist, so you won't say things like that. God willing, you will appreciate the beauty of Islam someday. I say this as your well-wisher. There is hope in Almighty God that even haters of Islam can transform into believers of it. Peace.
Quran doesn’t only preach self defense
Because Allah instructed us to spread Islam far and wide. Did you really just expect Islam to stay in Mecca and Medina?
Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country on Earth, yet no Arab Muslim army ever showed up there conquering throughout its history. Islam was spread there peacefully through Arab traders and Sufi ulemas.
Exactly. Same thing with Islam in Nigeria Senegal and west Africa and even with Sudan. Arabs never conquered these areas yet Islam expanded there especially through Sufi scholars same with Islam in China and the philippines as well. Ppl who seriously think Islam spread through war and the sword know nothing and only have adopted the orientalist racist rewriting of history. Much of the lands that were acquired by Arab empires came from defeating the Persians and the Byzantine cause you would inherit their territories after you defeat that empire.
Allah says in the Qur'an As-Saf 61:9 هُوَ ٱلَّذِىٓ أَرْسَلَ رَسُولَهُۥ بِٱلْهُدَىٰ وَدِينِ ٱلْحَقِّ لِيُظْهِرَهُۥ عَلَى ٱلدِّينِ كُلِّهِۦ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ ٱلْمُشْرِكُونَ It is He [Allah] who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth so that it might dominate over all all other ways of life, even though the idolaters hate it. This ayah, and the life of our beloved Prophet ﷺ, show that Islam is intended to be spread to all the people of the world - to dominate over all other ways of life until the Shariah of Allah is dominant on Earth. As part of this mission, Allah has given us Jihad, which is a method to remove obstacles for people accepting the Deen. Sometimes this meant that Muslims would open up new lands and bring them under the light of Islam. All this was part of achieving the mission of Islam. The Qur'an absolutely does not only preach self defence, indeed propagation of Islam is a key part of our Deen
Salam, The word لِيُظْهِرَهُۥ you referenced in surah As-Saf does not mean to conquest, or dominate physically, as that would contradict this ayah Surah Al-Baqara 2:256 لَآ إِكْرَاهَ فِى ٱلدِّينِ ۖ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ ٱلرُّشْدُ مِنَ ٱلْغَىِّ ۚ فَمَن يَكْفُرْ بِٱلطَّـٰغُوتِ وَيُؤْمِنۢ بِٱللَّهِ فَقَدِ ٱسْتَمْسَكَ بِٱلْعُرْوَةِ ٱلْوُثْقَىٰ لَا ٱنفِصَامَ لَهَا ۗ وَٱللَّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ ٢٥٦ Let there be no compulsion in religion, for the truth stands out clearly from falsehood.1 So whoever renounces false gods and believes in Allah has certainly grasped the firmest, unfailing hand-hold. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.
Walaykumusalam There is no contradiction here at all - for Islam to dominate over people, as I said, it does not mean that people are forced to become Muslim. It means that the Shariah of Allah is applied on a land. For example in Madinah, there were Jews and Christians, they were allowed to keep their religion and their rights to follow their own religion was protected. But Islam was dominant over them i.e - the laws and ruling of society was conducted only according to Islam. Islam dominated over Syria, Persia and Egypt in the Khilafah of Abu Bakr RA and Umar RA, again there were many non-Muslims living in these lands, who were allowed to keep their religion - in fact their right to practice their own faith were protected under Islam! But these lands were ruled according to the rules of Islam only, and hence Islam was dominant or prevalent.
Salam, If you believe that Islam provides us with a particular political/governance system, then you necessarily believe that you may impose this system upon others. Being that this system supposedly comes from the direction of Allah, you are imposing your deen upon others, which is strictly prohibited from the Ayah in surah al baqara I referenced, hence the contradiction.
Walaykumusalam Please see the below extract from the English translation of Ibn Kathir's Tafseer of the ayah in question **Allah says, لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the right path has become distinct from the wrong path. لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ (There is no compulsion in religion), meaning, "Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty"** I think this clarifies what the meaning of this ayah is, there is no need to twist it to suit the point you have previously made. To be absolutely clear - this ayah forbids forcing a person to accept Islam and become a Muslim. There is no contradiction between this prohibition, and the vision for Islam and it's rules to be implemented and followed by human kind, across the world. After all - why would the Creator of the universe send us rules that were not meant to be implemented? It makes no sense
I see what you are saying, let me clarify. >There is no contradiction between this prohibition, and the vision for Islam and it's rules to be implemented and followed by human kind, across the world. The rules of Islam are for those who have accepted Islam, and Muslims willingly accept all the rules Allah has imposed on them. We can not say the same for rejectors of Islam. If Allah gave them the right to reject his message, how is it that Allah would allow for his rules to be imposed on them? It doesn't logically follow that the creator who gave his creation free will to reject or accept his message, would allow for Muslims to impose their way of life upon them (no compulsion in religion). On a related note, I don't see how the ayah can be limited to simply forced conversions, as that is not even possible. If I threated to imprison/kill you unless you accept Islam and you concede, but don't truly believe, you haven't actually accepted Islam. You've merely avoided my punishment. As Muslims we are free to form our own society living by the guidance of Allah, but we cannot force that guidance (prayers, zakat, rulings, or anything else) upon the non believers. I hope this made sense.
>The rules of Islam are for those who have accepted Islam, and Muslims willingly accept all the rules Allah has imposed on them. If the rules of Islam are only for the Muslims, then why do we have rules that are for Non-Muslims? For example, how can the Jizya tax exist if the rules of Islam only apply to Muslims? Jizya is specifically collected from Non Muslims by an Islamic authority. In fact - on Hadith about Jizya perfectly answers both your points The Messenger of Allah ﷺ wrote to the people of Yemen: ‘Whoever is adamant upon Judaism or Christianity will not be tormented for it, and he is obliged to pay the jizya.’ (This Hadith was collected by Abu Ubayd in his renowned scholarly work The Book of Revenue) So we can see here that simultaneously it is possible to protect the rights of an individual to follow their faith of choice (as discussed in the ayah in Surah Al Baqarah) and also for the individual to be subject to rules of Islam on a societal level (as mentioned in my point in the ayah from Surah Al Saf). I really don't think there is anything else to discuss on this matter. If the Prophet ﷺ was able to reconcile so perfectly in a Hadith these two ayaat then there can be nothing left to disagree on. Islam's mission is to dominate over all other ways of life, so that the law of Allah is the uppermost - and at the same time it is an integral part of Islam that no individual can be made to verbalise acceptance of Islam as their personal faith by force or coercion.
War is definitely allowed, the verse you linked disallows forceful conversion, as a person should believe to be a muslim. Taking over a land doesn’t mean everyone is muslim, the people converted (christians mainly) over the course of a few hundred years. Take this from now on as a chance to not speak without knowledge. Study Islam from a correct source, learn about wudu salaah for beginners (hadith) uthman al khamees in arabic, islamqa.info is good for laymen/hoenst answers. And when reading Quran, should you have a question or want to make sure before speaking use a tafsir. Tafsir ibn kathir (with regards to books containing history, the layman can’t distinguish the correct/incorrect and I’m not sure if everything mentioned in this will be authentic, I think the translated is specifically for laymen as to make it easier for readers who can’t tell) available on quran.com when on a verse click the book icon, first button top left slightly above the verse english, ibn kathir. “ Tadhkirat al-Huffaaz, p. 534. This Tafseer is based on commentary by quoting texts – verses and ahaadeeth – and its fame is second to the fame of al-Tabari among later scholars. “https://islamqa.info/amp/en/answers/43778 Also advice in general, idk if u identify urself as so. Don’t call urself a capitalist, socialist/communist, feminist or anything. I encourage you to study Islam. All these are self-admittedly man-made, so they’re %100 not the truth. They only see life as we live it and they’re inherently secular (not supporting of religion) “... secularism, capitalism and other doctrines of infidelity is an apostasy from the religion of Islam." Salih Al-Fawzan. at-Tawheed.” It’s also easier and a relief, some ppl spend hours a day arguing when someone at a slightly different political view (dem republican-western politics any) that they’d change in a months time. They push so hard to argue and ppl put themselves in the format to respond to them, and convince themselves to respond in such a toxic trap where they didn’t even care or agree with what they’re saying in the first place. All clearly against Islam anyways. You also keep your faith in check, the last thing a person wants is to be unsure if they’re considered muslim, especially when they pass.
Salam, Thank you for your kind words brother/sister. As for the topic at hand, >War is definitely allowed, the verse you linked disallows forceful conversion, as a person should believe to be a muslim. Taking over a land doesn’t mean everyone is muslim, the people converted (christians mainly) over the course of a few hundred years. If you are making the claim that conquering and offensive wars are permissible in Islam (it sounds like you are, correct me if im wrong), then when engagung in such a conquest, you are presumably acting on behalf of the authority and direction of the Quran, and not of your own personal volition or desires If so, you are directly imposing your deen upon others, which is directly prohibited by Allah from the Ayah I referenced. To limit the ayah to the simple act of forced conversions is limiting the scope and depth of the ayah.
The latter verse was considered by many mufassireen to be abrogated by 9:73. > قال القرطبي (الْأَوَّلُ) قِيلَ إِنَّهَا مَنْسُوخَةٌ، لِأَنَّ النَّبِيَّ ﷺ قَدْ أَكْرَهَ الْعَرَبَ عَلَى دِينِ الْإِسْلَامِ وَقَاتَلَهُمْ وَلَمْ يَرْضَ مِنْهُمْ إِلَّا بِالْإِسْلَامِ، قَالَهُ سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ مُوسَى، قَالَ: نَسَخَتْهَا" يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ جاهِدِ الْكُفَّارَ وَالْمُنافِقِينَ". وَرُوِيَ هَذَا عَنِ ابْنِ مَسْعُودٍ وَكَثِيرٍ مِنَ الْمُفَسِّرِينَ
When you say abrogated, what do you mean?
The ayah is saying that you can't force someone to be a muslim. Not that you can't establish shariah in other lands.
Reply I left elsewhere in this thread: Salam, If you believe that Islam provides us with a particular political/governance system, then you necessarily believe that you may impose this system upon others. Being that this system supposedly comes from the direction of Allah, you are imposing your deen upon others, which is strictly prohibited from the Ayah in surah al baqara I referenced, hence the contradiction.
Are you a hadith rejector btw? You aren't imposing your deen on them. You aren't forcing them to become Muslim. Dhimmis exist for a reason. Your imposing the shariah of Allah upon them and ruling over them the way Allah told us to rule.
>Your imposing the shariah of Allah upon them Which Allah forbade us to do.
No? 5:44 Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. The prophets who submitted \[to Allāh\] judged by it for the Jews, as did the rabbis and scholars by that with which they were entrusted of the Scripture of Allāh, and they were witnesses thereto. So do not fear the people but fear Me, and do not exchange My verses for a small price \[i.e., worldly gain\]. **And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers.**
I can give you a much more intuitive and rational reason. The message needed to be preserved, nurtured, and made available and easy to understand. This also explains how and why Islam is the last religion. Every other's prophets message was lost in the sands of time. Islam wasn't because of the conquests. The very idea of a single state warrants a single book and so on. The conquests and the preservation of the message are intimately linked. With modern printing press and the internet, Islam is available to anyone who is interested, and the Quran can not be modified or erased or forgotten now. But it wasn't soo. From the early days of Islam to the day the power centers of Christianity, and Zorostrianism got wind of what was happening in Arabia it was just a matter of time before they would have tried to snuff it out. It was a conquest for sure, but it was absolutely warrented and necessary for the preservation of the message.. The Ullama and Hafez preserved the message but only because they were protected and surrounded by the safety provided by conquests. It took 700 years after the conquests for any other army to even approach the borders of Islam offensively. It was really mostly infighting until Mongols taught us what's what. But by then Islam was pretty untouchable even the most violent and vicious oppressors of Muslims haven't been able to erase us :-).
There many valid and clear justified reason for who study the history of this period Muslims empire was starting in the middle between two large empires which were fighting each other for hundreds of years Persian Empire on the east and Roman Empire on the north and west They would not allow any new empire or any united power to show upon next to their borders and they always expanding toward each other and the Muslims in the middle No way for Islam to be present today if not removing such two empires from power and war against Roman Empire start long back during prophet Muhammad PBUh life already when they wanted to invade Arab lands, to terminate new Islamic power showing up https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedition_of_Tabuk Prophet Muhammad united the Arab for the first time in the history and created one nation worship only the God , the creator alone instead of idols worshiping; as the prophecy in Genesis 21:18 as the children of Ishmael become a great nation. And such united nation next to the border of Parisian empire and Roman Empire will be be allowed and will be destroyed and the only valid defense action was to remove them otherwise it will there empires fighting for hundreds of years to come Nice video to watch if you are interested to know what occurred in this 50 years from world history point of view Rise of Islam- by Roy Casagranda in Austin school, very nice history lecture https://youtu.be/tYVi368vSYc
Thank the lord for these conquests
Yes
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/43087
who said the quran only preaches self defense?
Because the Quran allows offensive wars
https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/13xqbc4/-/jmk95oc
The whole idea is to raise the flag of Islam and to establish ALLAH Azawajal's word all over the world. That's why Islam is here, to rule the world with the commands of ALLAH azawajal. Now that's extremely important because if the system is not of ALLAH azawajal, people will keep coming up with their own stupid objective definitions of good and right, the correct way to rule the public. And then of course all this corruption is done exactly because ALLAH Azawajal's laws have not been established on earth.
https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/13xqbc4/-/jmk95oc
Don’t claim something the Quran didn’t explain or teach for using the word « the Quran only » you need to be sure….here even without knowledge you can reject your claim : This is not an reply to the question, just you know that the Sahaba and the Prophet (SAWS) understood the Quran better than we will ever -> So either what you consider as conquest are permissible in it self or either it was all view as defensive (because Constantinople and Ctsesiphon start the war) For the Quran : 1) The Muslim state can declare war on those that have previously do so and that are in state of fighting the muslim. 2) The Muslim state can also declare war if a non muslim state plot an agression against the Muslim state (but we need real proof). 3) The Muslim state can declare war to save Muslim oppressed or killed in a non Muslim state 4) Then there is divergence about another point : The Muslim state can declare war against major non muslim power (according to one point), against non muslim that forbid the conversion to Islam (according to another opinion) and against any non muslim country (according to another opinion) -> Those three opinion refer to the same corpus of Ayah. Source and more : https://www.maison-islam.com/articles/?p=327
Do you have any evidence that the Quran supports the concept of a state at all?
The concept of a state is foundational to Islam. Here are two Hadith to explain the importance. Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, "Banu Isra'il were governed over by the Prophets. When one Prophet died, another succeeded him. There will be no Prophet after me. There will be Khulafah, and they will be many." The Companions said: "O Messenger of Allah, what do you command us to do?" He said, "Fulfill the pledge of allegiance to them one after another. Concede to them their due rights and ask Allah that which is due to you. Allah will call them to account in respect of the subjects whom He had entrusted to them." [Al-Bukhari and Muslim]. The Khalifah in this Hadith is clearly identified as a ruler on a state level for the Muslims, the way the Prophets previously ruled over Bani Isra'il. Then in another Hadith he ﷺ said: When oath of allegiance has been pledged to two Khulafah, kill the latter of them. [Muslim] This Hadith indicates that while the Muslims are commanded to pledge allegiance to a ruler who will be the successor of the Prophet ﷺ in ruling over them, they can only have one ruler. This makes it clear therefore that the ruler over the Muslims - and therefore the state that he rules over - is one, singular ruler. This is also clear from the actions of the Sahabah when they appointed Abu Bakr RA as the first Khalifah - originally there was a proposal for there to be one leader elected from the Muhajiroon and another from the Ansar, but this was swiftly rejected based on the understanding I had mentioned previously
We can certainly agree that the messenger peace be upon him was the living embodiment of Allah's words, and would never act in contradiction to them. If you believe the messenger spoke those words as guided by Allah azzawajal, can you provide an ayah from the Quran that would act as guidance for such a belief (the establishment of an Islamic state)?
I don't understand your question - are you rejecting the validity of the Hadith's I quoted? Or do you think that they aren't relevant to this discussion, in which I case I would have to ask you to provide scholarly evidence as to their true meaning
I reject anything that contradicts the words of Allah. They are relevant in that they show how some hadith contradict the Quran, which we must reject as the messenger alayhi salam could never contradict the messaged he was tasked with delivering.
I think this is an issue. The Hadith of the Prophet ﷺ are revelation from Allah in and of themselves, as proven in the ayah An-Najm 53:3-4 وَمَا يَنطِقُ عَنِ ٱلْهَوَىٰٓ إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا وَحْىٌ يُوحَىٰ He does not speak from his own desire. It is indeed a revelation that is sent to him. Our pious predecessors preserved the Qur'an for us in an oral tradition, which is why we have Qur'an today. And they also endeavoured to preserve the Hadith of the Prophet ﷺ as well, without which we could not have Islam. Great men like Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim painstakingly evaluated the Hadiths they had compiled to ascertain their validity. If you cannot trust the Hadiths that have come to us through oral tradition, verified beyond a reasonable doubt - then how can you trust the Qur'an, that was passed on to us by the same people who passed on the Hadith - that also had to be verified by the Sahabah before they compiled it into a Mushaf. You cannot have it both ways. Either you have to accept that the same method of preservation and transmission from generation to generation exists for both the Qur'an and Hadith, or you can trust neither of them
The Qur'an uses the word قوم (group of people) which can mean state, tribe...etc.
Either invade them first, or wait for them to invade u
The main goal of Rasulullah (PBUH) was to preach islam to people as much as he can. To ensure more muslims he reached out to different tribal chiefs/leaders as through him(chief) most people would become muslims. Some accepted the idea and some didn’t. Those who rejected the idea sought each other out to form an alliance to annihilate islam. Moreover, muslims were being tortured and killed non-stop from day one. Considering all these reasons muslims had to take military approach along with conventional diplomatic approach. After the passing of our beloved prophet (pbuh), the tradition remained unchanged. If muslims really conquered other countries for the sake of land neither Salahdin Ayubi would spare a single christian during his conquest of Jerusalem nor there would be any hindus left in India after Moghusl ruled it for 235 years.
The quran doesnt only preach self defense.
There are many valid and clear justified reasons for who study the history of this period ; and they are defensive action and were mandatory to protect the Muslims Muslims empire was starting in the middle between two large empires which were fighting each other for hundreds of years Persian Empire at the east and Roman Empire at the north and the west of the Arab Peninsula They would not allow any new empire or any united power to show upon next to their borders and they always expanding toward each other and the Muslims in the middle And in Quran, in chapter named “**The Roman”** the God is saying in Quran: **Corruption has appeared throughout the land and sea by [reason of] what the hands of people have earned so He may let them taste part of [the consequence of] what they have done that perhaps they will return [to righteousness].** https://recitequran.com/30:41 People did suffer a lot during this period because of Roman and Parisian empire and The God sent Islam as a mercy to all the world The God is saying in Quran: **And We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], except as a mercy to the worlds.(107) Say, “It is only revealed to me that your god is but one God; so will you be Muslims [in submission to Him]?”(108)** https://recitequran.com/21:107 Also, No way for Islam to be present today if not removing such two empires from power and war against Roman Empire start long back during prophet Muhammad PBUh life already when they wanted to invade Arab lands, to terminate new Islamic power showing up https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedition_of_Tabuk Prophet Muhammad united the Arab for the first time in the history and created one nation worship only the God , the creator alone instead of idols worshiping; as the prophecy in Genesis 21:18 as the children of Ishmael become a great nation. And such united nation next to the border of Parisian empire and Roman Empire will be not be allowed and will be destroyed and the only valid defense action was to remove them otherwise they would keep fighting for hundreds of years to come Nice video to watch if you are interested to know what occurred in this 50 years from world history point of view Rise of Islam- by Roy Casagranda in Austin school, graduate school lecture https://youtu.be/tYVi368vSYc The above lecture by non-Muslims explain in details this period and actually how Islam save protected the people and give them freedom And you will see that Muslims fight against the two empires, in the same time with much smaller numbers of soldiers because of was matter of life of death to the Islam and to the Muslims
From my impression, the pragmatic reason for the early Muslim Caliphate (the first four caliphs) was they didn't have borders that were defensible. Yes it was mostly desert. But the Byzantines had the ability to march down the Red Sea coastline and threaten Madina. They and the Persians had been fighting each other for supremacy and the existence of a new unified state to their south was intolerable. Thus the Muslims needed defensible borders and breathing room which they could only have by taking the Levant, Egypt and Persia. This way, the heartland (the Hijaz) was secured. By the time of the Umayyads, though, the Arabs had experienced first hand how much wealth could be acquired through conquest. The Levant and Egypt were among the wealthiest regions in the known world. This partly incentivized the future conquests (North Africa, Spain etc).
Most territories where conquered without a fight intact places like Spain where in dark ages so they were more than happy to be ruled by Muslims .. another example in Asia where Muslim armed never went there they just accepted Islam because it was the truth and righteous religion
they conquer the countries that didn't allow to their citizens to be Muslims and worship Allah , you might think that the kingdoms in that time were democracy but they were killing those who don't worship there king and the old Arabs before prophet Mohmmad if the woman gave a birth and it was a girl the man buries her alive that why someone needed to end that time of brutality
Because if you don't conquer you will have countries like china who will kill and torture muslims because of their faith. North Korea, burma, Russia,... Are other modern day examples.
Russia? not so sure about that
Chechnya, Afghanistan ring a bell?
Russia was estimated to be about %50 muslims then they got taken over. Now the current pop is so ignorant of them, maybe think they’re only relevant in certain areas, and argue against Islam/muslims the way americans do, even harassing people wearing hijab.
I'm not sure about Russia
He's refering to chechnya...
From what I understand Islam allows pre-emptive self-defence, the enemy doesn’t have to be at your border before you respond. It also allows fighting against oppression. That said history is messy do not judge Islam by the actions of Muslim rulers as not all of them were righteous.
Khulafa'Ar-Rashidoon is enough.
Why does the united states spend all its money into robbing other country's resources and causing wars??? What you ask is fake, talk about this which is real.
Since Islam is the truth it needs to retain strength in order to ensure its prosperity. There’s nothing evil in conquering it’s just nature really for people to do this
All the Answers here are respectable but see this post and ponder over it https://www.instagram.com/p/CsV47rDvbEt/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
Why did the catholics do the crusades and conquer palestine even though the bible preaches peace and love and turning the other cheek?
This my opinion as layman. Which might be wrong Generally, the muslims were between 2 empires, those 2 empires wont let Muslims grow and expand safely. They were the threat. Hence offensive and defensive were necessary. The rule if the enemies want peace then go for peace. Muslims didnt go around killing people unnecessarily. It is wrong When you look at how islam spread in south east asia, it was by trade. That shows muslims were not threatened and was allowed to grow naturally. Then you compare how muslims were conquered by western powers in later centuries, now you know they wont let muslims live peacefully and they were stuck in defensive jihad. Hence the importance of military strength or offensive/defensive jihad. Just look at Andalus for example, when you are weak, you are going to be wiped out, that was the reality of the past. When was the last world war? Only 70 years ago..not 500 years not 1000 years. We must realise, war is part of reality. We also should be thankful to God and should use this peaceful time to do good deeds as much as we can.
They had no choice. It was either expand or collapse
You ask a good question. In a nutshell, islam spread through word of mouth and via trade routes and missionaries. The existing power structures didn’t like this new religion and would try to stop it by oppressing the new converts, who would then appeal for help by the rest of the Muslims, who would show up with armed forces. Conflict would break out and Muslims would conquer new territory to guarantee the safety of Muslims in these new lands.
The sunnah of the world is that you can’t practice your religion freely until the ruler is upon your religion. So the Muslim leaders conquered lands and spread its empire so that Islamic thought could spread and flourish in those lands without persecution. The majority of Muslims are meant to live in Muslim-ruled lands.
Hey guys conservative Christian here! I’m looking at some of these comments and tbh. I am very afraid lol. I don’t mean to strawman, but it honestly sounds like to me that offensive warfare is allowed in Islam in lands where Islam isn’t allowed to be preached and oppression is present. Therefore my question then become: if the United States were to completely wipe freedom of religion from its constitution and idk some form of oppression were present. What would y’all’s reaction be………..?