This is Kchughtais post in other thread. i have few comments which i thought better to be discussed in separate thread.
There are few points that he mentioned
Armed jihad is for stopping injustice/persecution and repression.
When you have leader
and power to fight
For the armed jihad of sahbaha:razi: against roman and persian empires what were the motives? it is important that we understadn it to see how these can be implemented in todays time.Sahbaha placed three conditions for the opponents, to come to islam/pay jizya or fight? there is no mention of any type of oppression/persecution or injustice that those empire made and no clause before fight that if they remove these injustice all will be good.
To have leader is imortant for offensive jihad or do we need it for defensive jihad? or is there any thing like offensive or defensive?
for the power to fight, the quran ayat 8:60 ask us to have as much power as we have but not to stop untill we have a power. it means we may wait for power for offensive, but for defensive we should not wait untill we have the desired strenght rather we should take what ever we can then fight the oppressors.
i have certain other points to share but lets first build on these to understand more and how can we implement it in todays environment.
PS:i may not be able to reply on regular basis so one may have to wait at times to read my replies.
Can you specify which battles you are alluding to here:
Sahbaha placed three conditions for the opponents, to come to islam/pay jizya or fight? there is no mention of any type of oppression/persecution or injustice that those empire made and no clause before fight that if they remove these injustice all will be good.
Because in order to answer this we need to look at the historical context of the early battles.
Ok, let me pose this question. what is the prime purpose of jihad esp jihad bi saif?
From your perspective, are there any preconditions or you just gather forces and go on conquering empires?
Ok, let me pose this question. what is the prime purpose of jihad esp jihad bi saif?
From your perspective, are there any preconditions or you just gather forces and go on conquering empires?
There are preconditions, i will share my opinon lateron. First i need your answers/clarification on the points that i raised.
The Romans (Byzantines) certainly did carry out an injustice - they backed the Ghassanids, who killed a Muslim emissary who had been sent to convert the city of Bosra to Islam.
When the Muslims sent an army under Zayd Bin Haritha (ra) to punish the Ghassanids, the Byzantines sent an army that defeated the Muslims and killed Zayd.
That was the injustice for which jihad was made against the Romans - they protected the murderers of Muslim emissaries.
Jabla bin ayham head of ghassanids became murtad in hadrat umer:razi: time whereas the offensive was started in hadrat abu bakr:razi: time. This is what i know (i have to check books for this) , kindly confirm if my understanidng is correct or not.
Secondly if that was the main issue then why this was not the condition that stop this support and we will not fight?, how many emissaries were sent to romans to stop ghassanids? how many offensives were made against ghassanids and why not stop when muslims won battle of yarmouk?
To me this does not appear to be the sole reason for the attack, even the sermon given by hadrat abu bakr as quoted in al waqdi book hint in a different direction.
On page 14 of this book (page 24 of PDF) it indicates that Heraclius is warning his people for innovating and becoming tyrants as the cause of the oncoming Muslims. Also, in Wikipedia ... Muslim conquest of Levant it indicates that Romans were "rebuilding their authorities" in the territories that were in Persian control, but up to 20 years earlier were Roman (Byzantine) ... Is it not clear here that the evidence suggests that this jihad was to quell a heretical and oppressive Christian interpretation that was tyrannising the people of that region?
I'm not saying yes or no either way ... But it is something to consider ... Yes?
Bao, what is the hikma to control a situation when local people do not accept the Islamic rule or start fighting against Islamic regime?
Or we dont face such situation after gaining the regime?
I wonder how Afghanistan turned to Sharia compliant country peacefully.
Jabla bin Ayham became murtid after the Battle of Yarmouk where he fought for the Byzantines. He converted to Islam after the battle and then became Christian again and returned to be sheltered by them.
Byzantium would not have rescinded their support because they viewed themselves as being the greatest power in the world. Events were cast in motion that would lead to their destruction - Muslims seized their territory because they forefeited it through supoprt for the Ghassanid murderers; Byzantium hated the Muslims for taking their land and fought to take it back at every opportunity. They because an existential threat to the Ummah and had to be destroyed, fulfilled by Mehmed the conqueror 800 years later.
I didn’t read your post beyond this. The offer of three choices as mentioned above tells an incomplete story otherwise it amounts to coercion unless animosities already existed and most probably initiated by the opponents of Muslims. In that case, the three choices make sense that it gave a chance of peace before the inevitable fight had to be fought.
I didn't read your post beyond this. The offer of three choices as mentioned above tells an incomplete story otherwise it amounts to coercion unless animosities already existed and most probably initiated by the opponents of Muslims. In that case, the three choices make sense that it gave a chance of peace before the inevitable fight had to be fought.
Please tell us the complete story backed by historical facts
It is not Power only, it is part of dawah(not to enforce others into islam but to enforce ALLAHs ahkam all over the world).
What? enforce but not enforce. The first thing is to spread the message of Islam to all corners of the world. this is dawah and there is no 'enforcing' thing in it. In today's world you don't have to conquer and control area to spread and propagate the message of Islam. right?
and when you have state (not attained through talibanic style of course) then comes the enforcing part that a state does. No one should consider himself a 'Khudai Foojdaar'
Well I’m just saying that when we look at history books we can glean clues … Heraclius blamed his own officials of tyranny … and explained that this is reason why the Muslims are attacking them to his officials.
The justification however should come from an earlier time … The Muslim ranks were already forming towards Syria when RasoolAllah (SAW) was alive … perhaps reading up on that will reveal more information inshaAllah …
We can indeed see here that Muslims i.e. Sayyiduna Muhammad (SAW) sent emissaries to the north to invite to Islam, but the Christians in some areas killed those emissaries. This according to Muslim historical accounts was the reason for the invasions.
It is like you dont force people to get citizenship of a country but if the person gets the citizenship/immigrates then he has to abide by certain rules.
&
Surah Nasr i quoted tells us that people started coming into islam after the fatah.
Brother it was not revenge only, it was part of dawah.
Kufr is trying its level best to make muslims disown jihad/qitaal as this will be the main tool of hadrat esa and hadrat mehdi when they appear. You can see this through media/ through actions of kufr towards people trying to wage jihad/ and through actions of certain groups doing killing of innocents in the name of jihad.
Even the fitnahs of this ummat had one thing in common, hatred against jihad.(i will not explain this as this will change course of the thread ).
I request posters in this thread to comment on what lessons can we learn from ghazwaat/jihad during sahabah times and is there any possibility that we can relate this to todays world?
Well I can't understand the justice behind invading nations unless those nations are:
a) Invading the Muslims lands themselves
b) Getting ready to invade Muslim lands
c) Helping a people from freeing themselves of a tyrant
d) An act of aggression against a Muslim nation - like killing its emissaries
Entering a country for politically establishing Islam over it or even within a Muslim land to establish Islamic shari'ah by politically seeking out leadership, by a coup or other forceful means is against my understanding of Islam.
Real conversions to Islam happened after the conquering ... through the conduct of the Muslim conquerors - today our own armies will go in and destroy buildings, shrines, rape women, and take resources without paying ... The point of spreading Islam is to do so in the best possible way ... Fighting is the last resort and for a surety those who enjoy killing should be kept well away from it.
placed three conditions for the opponents, to come to islam/pay jizya or fight? there is no mention of any type of oppression/persecution or injustice that those empire made and no clause before fight that if they remove these injustice all will be good.
