Re: Requirements for fight
In Islam, there is no such thing as Offensive Jihad. Islam has Jihad and Fasad.
Jihad = Defensive Jihad
Fasad = Offensive Jihad (plus much more)
It is obvious that if one would use force to change others beliefs or occupy land others live, then it would be initiating killing and Fasad … as it is right of all to defend themselves, their lands, and their beliefs.
Throughout Quran Allah says that it is duty of Muslims to be just, and not to enforce beliefs on others by force, rather Allah told Muslims that beliefs are personal matters, and Allah has not made anyone as overseer of other people’s faith.
Allah has even stopped Prophet (SAW) to take duty or think as overseer (guarding, supervisor, boss, or observer) of other people’s faith. Allah even stopped Muslims to talk bad or demean what others follow as religion (even to abstain from abusing, talking bad or demeaning Gods other’s worship).
Whenever a person, group, or state tries to change or impose their beliefs (Islamic or whatever) on others using laws, violation, suppression, aggression, discrimination, injustices, etc ... then that is Fasad … and to claim such act as Islamic is kufr.
Quran (many Ayahs) and Hadith abounds that prohibits Fasad of any kind … including Fasad in the name of Islam and that includes offensive Jihad … calling Fisadis as people who wage war against Allah.
It is ignorance to say that tool of Isa (AS) and Mehdi (AS) would be Offensive Jihad, as they (AS) would never do offensive Jihad. It would be army of Kuffars (including Fasadis) who would be aggressive towards peaceful Muslims, and they (AS) would defend Muslims against the army of Kuffars (non-Muslims and also Fasadis who would claim that they are Muslims).
To say that Khalifa have to establish Islamic rule all over the world is abusive statement full of ignorance. One can only say that a Muslim head of state (or Khalifa) should establish rule of Allah on area that person is ruling (that is obvious, as a Muslim head of state rules on behalf of Allah).
If it was duty of Khalifa to establish Islamic rule all over the world, than each and every Khalifa after Prophet (SAW) and even Prophet (SAW) did not fulfil their Islamic duty if they spent a single day without fighting non-Muslims unprovoked, just to expand Islamic rule ... and that is what they did throughout (tried to rule in peace and only responded when faced aggression).
If Islam was to be enforced, Umar (RA) would not have declined to pray in church fearing that by such act, later Muslims might not convert that particular church to Mosque. Unlike Taliban Kharjees blowing statue of Buddah, when many lands with numerous built statues came under Muslim rule, Umar (RA) did not ordered destruction of any statues. When Afghanistan came under Muslim rule during Usman (RA) time, Buddah statue that Kharjees under Mullah Umar destroyed was left alone (as leaving alone those statues was Islam, and destroying them was Fasad).
Further, Prophet (SAW) could not have made Allah and people witness in his last sermon, claiming that he (SAW) has fulfilled his duty … as, if it was his (SAW) duty to establish Islamic rule all over the world than certainly Prophet (SAW) did not fulfilled that duty … rather, Prophet (SAW) did not even tried. Actually, prophet (SAW) made treaties with non-Muslims and fought only those who fought him (SAW).
Quran throughout talked about separate lands for Muslims and kuffars, showing that existence of both is according to will of Allah. Actually, at one place in Quran, Allah says that if Allah wanted to, then all would have been believers.
Anyhow, in later days, many head of states with mind of Fasadis but claiming to be Muslim, for purpose of expanding their kingdom (not Islamic kingdom but their kingdom of greed) just like past kings and tyrants, did aggression against peaceful kingdoms, killing many innocent human creations of Allah, and named that Jihad. Unfortunately, in their Fasad that they called Jihad, these tyrants even fought many other Muslim Kings and killed many innocent Muslims.
If one reads Quran, message is clear that there is no jabr (force) in religion and establishing Islamic rule over those who do not believe on Islam or those who do not want to live under Islam is jabr. Even amongst Muslims, there could be two different understanding and interpretation of Islam, so one enforcing their understanding and interpretation of Islam over others (because at the time one is more powerful than others) would be jabr (fitna, fasad) that Islam prohibits.
[Just imagine situation where at a place, a 'group of Muslim A’ are more powerful and stronger than 'group of Muslim B’, so taking advantage of their strength, 'group of Muslim A' enforces their understanding and interpretation of Islam over 'group of Muslim B’, calling that Jihad and cutting throat of those who do not accept ... then over time situation changes and 'group of Muslim B’ becomes powerful and stronger than 'group of Muslim A’, so 'group of Muslim B' starts doing the same, enforcing their understanding and interpretation of Islam over 'group of Muslim A', calling it Jihad and cutting throat who reject them.
Same can be said about people of one religion over other, enforcing their religion over others when they are in strength.
All such would only create Fitna and Fasad on ard (earth), and that is what Shaitan wants and Allah not only prohibits but abhor, calling that as war against Allah.]
Actually, we can see Munafiqat and kufr clearly in those who try to promote Offensive Jihad. For instance, if one ask them: What Kuffars should do with Muslims and Muslim states?
If Kuffars find means, are Kuffars justified to occupy peaceful Muslim lands, forcefully converting Muslims to their religion, killing those who reject them ... or even enforce their religious beliefs on Muslims who live in their land?
One would find these misguided people would say ‘No', they (Kuffars) are not justified’ to occupy Muslim lands and enforce their beliefs on Muslims. These people would not even hesitate to call such acts of Kuffars as ‘Zulm’ (what they regularly say about Palestinian occupation).
It shows that even these people believe and admit that such act (offensive jihad … or invasion without provocation) is Zulm if others commit that same act against Muslims … but they are ignorant to believe that is not Zulm but offensive Jihad if Muslims (rather they) commit same act against others (Kuffars and even Muslims who do not agree with them).
Actually, by declaring Zulm as offensive Jihad, these people try to portray that Kuffars who do not invade others without provocation, are better human beings than them and are following Islam (there is no force in religion) better than them (obviously not Muslims, but them).