Re: Holy Wars
Isn't that a pretty subjective definition of fitna? Can one define fitna objectively so that qitaal becomes wajib-ul-qitaal ?
There is nothing absolute about Wajib ul qatl as it is used today. In the time of Prophet, Muslims agitated against those who killed the new converts just because they abandoned their old beliefs. They made life of the new converts so difficult that Prophet ordered Muslims to migrate to Habsha (Ethopia, which was then a christian state). The Non-muslims (pagan of Arabs) followed Muslims there and asked Najjashi (then king of Habsh) not to accommodate them. Muslims were, however, able to convince Najjashi about the truth of new faith. Afterwards, remaining Muslims in Makka including Prophet and his family remained under continuous pressure of the Non-Muslims and at a stage they were socially boycotted. Muslims then migrated to Medina and there also Non-Muslims of Makka followed them and wage wars from time to time with their allies. When Muslims intended to visit Makka, they were not allowed to do so. Finally, when Muslims conquered Makka and Muslims could take revenge by saying that they are the Wajib ul qatl, nothing such happened, because there was no concept of revenge taught by the Prophet to his companions.
After the conquest of Makka, considering the what happened in past and acts of pagans against Muslims, it was ordered that if pagan wants to live in Makka, they had to converted to Islam or left the area to avoid any fitna (leading to wars). It is important to note here that when this order was made majority of makka population had already converted to Islam.