The Prophet and "Jihad"

[muqawwee123]

Re: The Prophet and "Jihad"

Ghazwa e Badr was not a defensive battle. If you go through Sura e Anfaal, you can easily understand the history behind it. Many historians skip around 8 ghazwas and saryas before Ghazwa e Badr took place. During Makkah Prophet was ordered not to react against kuffar e makka.. Thats why you will find verses in Makki Quran like 'Kuffoo aidyahum... hold your hand, A;irzoo: Ignore / avoid what they say / what they do', but Madni Quran order for action against atrocities and for spreading what was right.

We should study our history, before buying blank statements that Ghazwat were just for defense purpose. Sometimes, active struggle can be justified, but it can't be done if you start being apologetic.

As far as actions of Al-Qaida, ISIS are concerned, they don't follow Prophet's sunna and Quran's orders as mentioned by other posters. Jihaad is still need of the day and I respectfully disagree with those comments who thinks otherwise. Jihad is the need of day, we just need to channelise it. Jihaad doesn't mean just armed conflict, its your struggle with education, better diplomatic efforts, unity between Muslim Ummah, etc.

[bao_bihari]

Re: The Prophet and “Jihad”

@TLK

Jihad was a need in those days. It was more like, if you wont kill them, then they will kill you.

It was never about the land or power, it was for Islam. Nowadays, everything is about power and/or piece of land. Having said that, there is no need for Jihad in this day.

There is one dhaif hadith(dhaif not moudhoo)

Jihaad will remain fresh and green as long as raindrops fall from the sky. And there will come upon the people a time when Qur’aan reciters from among them will say: “This is not the time of Jihaad.” So whoever comes to that time, then it is the best time for Jihaad."They said: “O Messenger of Allaah, would someone really say that?” He said: “Yes, the one whom Allaah has cursed, and the angels and all of mankind.”

The chain of narrators is weak but there are other ahadith supporting the presence of jihad till day of judgement.So scholars normaly quote this hadith in their books.

Some more ahadith pertaining to topic at hand,i-e offensive jihad

Allah’s Apostle said: “**I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, **and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.” (Sahih Bukhari, 1:2:24 [see also 4:52:196])

It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that he heard the Messenger of Allah say: I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought. And when they do it, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah. (Sahih Muslim, 1:31 [see also 1:130, 1:32, 1:33])

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: I am commanded to fight with men till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is His servant and His Apostle, face our qiblah (direction of prayer), eat what we slaughter, and pray like us. When they do that, their life and property are unlawful for us except what is due to them. They will have the same rights as the Muslims have, and have the same responsibilities as the Muslims have. (Sunan Abu Dawud, 14:2635)

I agree with most of what muqawee has written in his post except this part

Jihaad doesn’t mean just armed conflict, its your struggle with education, better diplomatic efforts, unity between Muslim Ummah, etc.

it may be true in literal sense, but when ahadith mentions jihad and fazail relatd to jihad, it means armed conflict as per my understanding.

EDIT:

Some older thread on similar topic
http://www.paklinks.com/gs/religion-and-philosophy/635865-requirements-for-fight.html

http://www.paklinks.com/gs/religion-and-philosophy/580344-what-is-your-jihad-2.html#post9200446

[Obama]

Re: The Prophet and “Jihad”

@PyariCgudia

Um, if a community did not want to convert to Islam, and did not want to pay jizya, then why not just leave them alone? Where did this issue come from that they were instructed to kill them?

very puzzled I thought Quran tells us that if people don’t want to believe, then leave them be?

and left them be, the Muslims did if you study the 10 years of Caliphate during Hazrat Umar’s (RA) time.

The reason Muslims fought the Byzantine Empire also the Persian Empire was their laws i.e. in those Empires all conquered property was owned by the Emperor, and people were tenants and paid Taxes to the the Emperor especially the populations of conquered lands which Syria and Palestine and modern day Iraq were.

[Local populations of Jews and indigenous Christians, persecuted as religious minorities and taxed heavily to finance the Byzantine–Sassanid Wars, often aided Muslims to take over their lands from the Byzantines and Persians, resulting in exceptionally speedy conquests.[SUP][72]](Umar - Wikipedia)[/SUP][SUP][73]](Umar - Wikipedia)[/SUP] As new areas joining the Islamic State, they also benefited from free trade, while trading with other areas in the Islamic State, so as to encourage commerce, in Islam trade is not taxed, wealth is taxed.[SUP][74]](Umar - Wikipedia)[/SUP] The Muslims paid Zakat on their wealth to the poor. Since the Constitution of Medina, was drafted by the Islamic prophet Muhammad the Jews and the Christians continued to use their own laws in the Islamic State and had their own judges.[SUP][75]](Umar - Wikipedia)[/SUP][SUP][76]](Umar - Wikipedia)[/SUP][SUP][77]](Umar - Wikipedia)[/SUP] Therefore they only paid for policing for the protection of their property. To assist in the quick expansion of the state, the Byzantine and the Persian tax collection systems were maintained and the people paid a poll tax lower than the one imposed under the Byzantines and the Persians.]

So Muslims did not forcibly convert any of their populations, during the Syrian Campaign the Muslim Army drove the Byzantine/Roman Armies out with local Populations help. the local population mostly Christian and Jews gladly collected 10% Tax and gave it to the Muslim General. however the Muslim General and most of his Army were redirected to towards the Persian Campaign so he returned their money. the locals informed him that they were going to keep the Taxes collected safe for him when he returned from his campaign in Persia.

So Sister PCG the Muslim Armies were actually Liberators fighting the Tyrannical rulers of the time and never converted anyone by force like you may have been made to believe!

[psyah]

Re: The Prophet and "Jihad"

To simply put it military action cannot be waged until those who in the ranks are themselves practicing jihad of the nufs ... There is no real distinction of lesser and greater jihad, they are both the same thing ... struggles are struggles - but the kind of struggles have certain requisites ... it is a fallacy to not struggle against oneself, while fighting on the battlefield with others and then claim that the act is noble ... if struggling against oneself is in place regardless of whether the person is in battle or not then that is noble.

If a war or battle is in place where people are merely struggling to kill their opponents without any recourse to the the principles and values of Islam then - the jihad taking place is an evil one. Jihad (struggle) can be evil or noble and a noble struggle can only take place when the motives, values, means and methods are all noble.

Based on these principles we can more fully recognise the intent behind how to reconcile the spreading of Islam and war.

1) War was basically defensive in the first instance
2) Retaliating acts of aggression
3) Then war is for fending off an aggressor of weaker/innocent communities
4) Then war is for controlling territories that seek to break away that have already pledged to the protection of the state
5) War is not for spreading Islam - that is the role of dawah

1) Dawah is given to the heads of foreign states - they choose to accept it or reject it
2) If they accept then traditionally they have become part of the greater state or caliphate, but this aspect is up for debate for this day and age.
3) If they reject then they are left alone so long as they do not wage acts of aggression on the members of the state.

Any state cannot grow to take over the whole world - whoever thinks that will be given a rude-awakening ... History teaches us that states expand and collapse and the safest way to keep control is to create client states as made popular in the Roman Empire and the modern version today under the UN ... The most successful order is the financial order ... it has true globalised power - that is the IMF and World Bank are the most successfully far reaching institutions that although have no strict borders - have control nonetheless. They maintain their control by have a pecking order of states - none truly their friend and none truly their foe ... Their offices are dotted all over the world and they have no overt control which keeps them out of the limelight.

Islam comes with its own financial institution and this is the biggest threat to the modern world which is why Islam is being demonised today ...

Coming back to the jihad matter - If we seek to take over a territory that is already Muslim, we have not legitimacy to make that claim because there are existing Muslim leaders who have greater claim to being the caliph than anyone who has claimed it in the ISIS. Rather the ISIS harbour a contender for caliphate and can be perceived to be a challenge ... If there are two or more major forces battling it out - the true original Mu'tazila (Abstainers) (not to be confused with the people with the erroneous aqeeda who came afterwards) took the most noble position. They did not take any sides and they avoided politics. Today there will be many Muslim groups competing for power ... it gives us even more reason to abstain supporting any group trying to take political power - especially when they do so by killing other Muslims.

Now coming to the topic of the hadith - "this is not the time of jihad" - of course people will forget what that means ... When people say that either one of two things are becoming manifest in society and they are both linked to ignorance of Islam ...

1) This will be used to support war and aggression
2) The time when this will be most important is when people have actually forgotten how to be noble ...

Abstainers could be criticised for avoiding bloody conflicts and accused of being cowardly and so on ... but the fact is "this is not the time for war" - it will always be the "time for jihad" however ... And when there are most hardships and in-fighting that is the most important time for "jihad of the nufs" ... This should correctly align ourselves with our principles ... ISIS is out of control and those who even think of supporting them are walking in to a trap ...

These are the times of confusion and the best thing to do is relax ... this hadith is taking effect today so we should adopt it ....

Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “There will be tribulations** during which a sitting person will be better than the one standing. The one standing will be better than the one walking. The one walking will be better than the one running. Whoever exposes himself to these tribulations will be destroyed, so whoever finds a place of protection or refuge should take shelter in it.**”
Source: Sahih Bukhari 6670, Sahih Muslim 2886

[bao_bihari]

Re: The Prophet and “Jihad”

Few things @psyah

i think we have a clear consensus over here that ISIS is not doing benefit to the ummah. Scholrs all over the world have disagred with them as well.

and the biggest jihad bin nafs is qitaal. It is biggest fight with nafs to get your life exposed for your deen.

2:216 Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.

[psyah]

Re: The Prophet and “Jihad”

@bao_bihari

Few things @psyah

i think we have a clear consensus over here that ISIS is not doing benefit to the ummah. Scholrs all over the world have disagred with them as well.

and the biggest jihad bin nafs is qitaal. It is biggest fight with nafs to get your life exposed for your deen.

Yes that is essentially what I am saying, but I sense a favouring of war in your words … jihad bin nafs in qitaal is only the biggest jihad IF we truly “dislike it” … There are many bloody thirsty “Muslims” out there - for whom killing or fighting is no big struggle … this verse came revealed to a softened people - it was revealed to a pious people … who hate conflict … so I caution that qitaal is only the greatest jihad for those who “dislike it” - and the very thing qitaal is indulgence of desires for those who love to kill … which again invokes that hadith … this is not the time to fight - this is the time to struggle actually against fighting and when we are in a rage and want to take revenge - that is the time we should not … please understand this distinction … jihad does not end - but qitaal has a context …

[bao_bihari]

Re: The Prophet and "Jihad"

@psyah

i am not favouring war, but i am against if some one ask afghans or palestinians to do jihad bil qalam. The disease of blood lustiness is another extreme that we as a muslims are facing today and i consider these people as some one who is supporting kuffar by destroying the image of jihad.

There are many ahadith that talk about the qitaal being height of muslims eeman, the increase of eeman when muslims stands in front of kuffar etc. Islam is a practical religion, like a person who needs to get operated to save his life , at times world need qitaal to be saved from fitna/oppression/kufr.

I will not be debating it any further unless needed,one thing that i firmly believe is that during end of times any one who do not know about complete islamic teachings of jihad will side with dajjal, or will be against mehdi. ( This is what i believe , i am not labelleing any one just sharing what i think may happen)

May ALLAH make us all one of those who support deen in time of fitna.

[psyah]

Re: The Prophet and "Jihad"

That is fine brother bao bihari ... as long as we can demonstrate to ourselves that we do not "love qitaal" but "dislike it" and we stop "qitaal" the moment we start to feel "an enjoyment for it" that we remain not enraged, but contained and thinking about preserving the life of the enemy and inviting them to Islam rather than taking hate fueled vengeance and a mindset of annihilation ... then we are on the right course ... this is the jihad of nufs during the qitaal ... If we don't harbour these traits then we will continue to lose battles, the moment we are pious on the battlefield that is when angels will be sent to us.

People were sent away from battles because their purity was not up to speed - In Islam it is not about quantity, but about quality ... and certainly would not wish to fight if I am not able to control my nufs in normal day-to-day life. Things happen far too quickly on the battlefield and there is no time to reflect and repent.

The ulema have categorically stated that our weapon is not fire power it is taqwa ... the moment we start to put belief in weapons and physical means for success then Allah (SWT) will leave us and we will always be lesser in technology and will be wasted away, but a subtle change in belief will enable mere rocks and earth thrown by the pious people to be more effective than automatic state of the art weapons. Please note the distinction between this position and that of the pacifist - I hope you can see that my stance is not about avoiding fighting at all costs - but about something else.

I would sooner come in harms way to protect a brother without any weapons and be killed than fighting without spiritual training armed to the teeth and be taken down - that latter position is far riskier for my soul. When it is hard to work out who is right and who is wrong - then it is better to abstain.

[chanduchamaar]

Re: The Prophet and "Jihad"

Not directly related to the discussion, but i've read it very frequently that Al-Qaeeda disowned ISIS(which was earlier its Syrian wing) for being too brutal. It just doesn't make sense.

[bao_bihari]

Re: The Prophet and "Jihad"

@chanduchamaar

Not directly related to the discussion, but i've read it very frequently that Al-Qaeeda disowned ISIS(which was earlier its Syrian wing) for being too brutal. It just doesn't make sense.

basicaly ISIS announced one state daoula iraq which was accepted from al qaedah, ISIS went into syria under new name of jabhatun nusra then tried to combine two franchices unde one banner, this is where differences arose and jabhatu nusra leader who was previously ISIS member openly allinged himself with alqaeda which alqaeda quickly accepted.

It is one of ISIS factions that have joined al qaeda.

[chanduchamaar]

Re: The Prophet and "Jihad"

So the splits were due to conflicts of interest and not because ISIS is soo VIOLENT and BRUTAL that even AL-Qaeda doesn't connect with it.

[psyah]

Re: The Prophet and "Jihad"

Power and politics is the domain of compromise - they are corrupting as proven time and again in history ... It would have been interesting to see what the stance would have been of Al-Qaeda had ISIS declared subservience to them while maintaining their violent methods.