Jump to content


- - -


Photo
- - - - -

Was Conquests Another Biddah Of Umar?


167 replies to this topic

#1 zakzaki

zakzaki

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 787 posts
  • Religion:Islam
  • Interests:Al Mutao khayrun minaz Zina and Triple Talaq

Posted 13 March 2010 - 08:31 AM

The prophet (pbuh) brought the religion of Islam which means peace. Neither in his lifetime he declared any war against anyone, nor did he force anyone to convert and all wars in his lifetime were fought in defense and not offense.

The Quran also declares that there is no force in religion.

But Umar who introduced many biddahs also started the biddah of conquering lands in the name of Islam.

the conquests started during the caliph Omar (634-644). In 635, he conquered Damask and in 636, the army chief Halid ibn-al-Walid destroyed the Byzantine Army in the battle of Yarmouk and drove it away from Syria. Then, the Muslims invaded Mesopotamia, dominated by Persia, and in 642 they occupied Persia and Alexandria (and with it, the whole Egypt). From Egypt, further campaigns conquered Northern Africa.

http://news.softpedi...rld-77799.shtml


Today, Islam is known as a terrorist religion, extremist religion etc. who is responsible for the biddah of extremism in Islam.

#2 Panzerwaffe

Panzerwaffe

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,227 posts
  • Location:USA ( my heart is in KUFA )

Posted 13 March 2010 - 10:23 AM

hatred of umar amongst 12ers is pathological

now ur questioning the conquests , who are the people who took part in it ? are u gonna called them terrorists lackeys of umar ?
malik b harith who fought in yarmuk
hujr b adi who commanded in jahula
abu ubayda thaqafi who was killed at jasr
ibn budayl who conquered isfahan

u will call them terrorists ? too bad no 12ers are willing to defend the reputation of these honorable men just because they want to slander umar
what bothers people about conquests is that their beloved persian empire was destroyed all their precious civilization taken over by bedouins thats what bothers u as u place nationalism over everything else

#3 zakzaki

zakzaki

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 787 posts
  • Religion:Islam
  • Interests:Al Mutao khayrun minaz Zina and Triple Talaq

Posted 13 March 2010 - 10:39 AM

hatred of umar amongst 12ers is pathological


There is a reason

Ibn Abi Shayba

Ibn Abi Shayba (235 AH/ 849 CE), a prominent scholar of hadith and one of the teachers of al-Bukhari, narrates in his book al-Musanaf that:
“ Umar came to the house of Fatima and said: "O' Daughter of the Prophet of God! I swear by God that we love no one more than your father, and after him we love no one more than you. Yet I swear by God that that won't stop me from gathering these people and commanding them to burn this house down! [5] ”


ibn Qutayba

Ibn Qutaybah (276 AH/889 CE) in al-Imama wa al-Siyasa writes:
“ Umar said: 'I swear by He who controls the life of Umar, either you come out or I will burn this house down!' The people said: 'Abu'l Hafs, Fatima is also in this house'. Umar replied: 'Even if she is...' [6] ”


al-Baladhuri

al-Baladhuri (297 AH/ 892 CE) in Ansab al-Ashraf writes:
“ "Abu Bakr sent for Ali so that he can give alligance but he didn't. So Umar came [to the house] and Fatima met him at the door. She said: 'ibn Khatab you want to burn my door down?' Umar replied: 'Yes, in order to strengthen the religion your father brought.' [7] ”
History of al-Tabari

The historian Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (923 CE) in his Tarikh[8] writes:
“ Umar Ibn al-Khattab came to the house of Ali. Talhah and Zubayr and some of the immigrants were also in the house. Umar cried out: "By God, either you come out to render the oath of allegiance, or I will set the house on fire." al-Zubair came out with his sword drawn. As he stumbled (upon something), the sword fell from his hand so they jumped over him and seized him." ”

—al-Tabari, Tarikh

The translator’s commentary on this event provides the following background:

“Although the timing of the events is not clear, it seems that ‘Ali and his group came to know about the Saqifah after what had happened there. At this point, his supporters gathered in Fatima’s house. Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, fully aware of ‘Ali’s claims and fearing a serious threat from his supporters, summoned him to the mosque to swear the oath of allegiance. ‘Ali refused, and so the house was surrounded by an armed band led by Abu Bakr and Umar, who threatened to set it on fire if ‘Ali and his supporters refused to come out and swear allegiance to Abu Bakr. The scene grew violent and Fatima was furious." [9]

Sulaym b. Qays

The book Kitab Sulaym b. Qays al-Hilali, which was written by a companion of 'Ali.[10] It describes 'Umar's attack, and describes how Fatimah, the daughter of Prophet Muhammad, was injured, and allegedly beaten, in the attack, resulting in her miscarriage.[11]
al-Mas'udi

The book Ithbāt al-Waṣīyyah, composed in the third Islamic century[citation needed], is attributed to the historian al-Mas'udi, but this is highly doubted.[citation needed]

The author writes:
“ They attacked [Ali], burned his door and took him out by force and pressed [Fatima] against the door until she miscarried Muhsin. ”

He also writes:
“ While addressing the people Abu Bakr said: “…of the three mistakes that I committed, one of them is that during my time Fatima's house was broken into..” [12] ”


Ibn Abd Rabboh

Ibn Abed Rabboh, in his book Al-Iqd ul-Fareed[13], writes:
“ As for Ali, Abbas and Zubair, they stayed in the house of Fatima until Abu Bakr sent Umar to get them out of Fatima's house and told him: if they refuse, fight them. He took a torch to burn the house and Fatima met him and told him: are you here to burn our house? He said: yes, or you enter what the Ummah has entered (i.e swear allegiance). ”


Tarikh al-Ya’qoubi
“ “..When Abu Bakr and Umar heard the news that a party of the Ansar and the Muhajirin have gathered with ‘Ali at the house of the daughter of the Prophet, they went with a group of people and attacked the house…” [14]

References

5. ^ Ibn Abi Shayba, al-Musanaf, vol. 7 (Beruit: Dar al-Taj, 1989), 432.
6. ^ ibn Qutayba, al-Imama wa al-Siyasa (Egypt: Maktabt al-Tijaria al-Kubra), 13.
7. ^ al-Baladhuri, Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. 1 (Cairo: Dar al-Ma'arif, 1959), 586.
8. ^ http://www.almeshkat...cat=13&book=620
9. ^ The History of al-Tabari, Volume IX, The Last Years of the Prophet, p186-187, SUNY Press
10. ^ http://www.al-khoei....roducts_id=1297
11. ^ Kitab Sulaym Ibn Qays al-Hilali, Hadith 4, p48-67 (English Translation)
12. ^ Tarikh al-Mas’udi, Volume 1-2, p 235-236, Nafees Academy, Karachi, Pakistan (Urdu Translation)
13. ^ http://al-eman.com/I...ID=29&SW=

Edited by zakzaki, 13 March 2010 - 10:41 AM.


#4 Panzerwaffe

Panzerwaffe

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,227 posts
  • Location:USA ( my heart is in KUFA )

Posted 13 March 2010 - 10:43 AM

wow u have really opened my eyes ...sooooo original i must say

anyway stick to the conquests , we can discuss fatima's alleged murder in another thread

#5 zakzaki

zakzaki

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 787 posts
  • Religion:Islam
  • Interests:Al Mutao khayrun minaz Zina and Triple Talaq

Posted 13 March 2010 - 10:44 AM

wow u have really opened my eyes ...sooooo original i must say

anyway stick to the conquests , we can discuss fatima's alleged murder in another thread


but your eyes are always closed since you talk without references and you wanted the reason so it was given.

Edited by zakzaki, 13 March 2010 - 10:45 AM.


#6 Panzerwaffe

Panzerwaffe

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,227 posts
  • Location:USA ( my heart is in KUFA )

Posted 13 March 2010 - 10:47 AM

references ? ur kiddin me right ....u guys use copy paste as a crutch most of these books u havent even seen let alone read

#7 Ali Askari

Ali Askari

    Allah as-Samad

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,695 posts
  • Location:Finland

Posted 13 March 2010 - 10:48 AM

The prophet (pbuh) brought the religion of Islam which means peace. Neither in his lifetime he declared any war against anyone, nor did he force anyone to convert and all wars in his lifetime were fought in defense and not offense.

The Quran also declares that there is no force in religion.

But Umar who introduced many biddahs also started the biddah of conquering lands in the name of Islam.

the conquests started during the caliph Omar (634-644). In 635, he conquered Damask and in 636, the army chief Halid ibn-al-Walid destroyed the Byzantine Army in the battle of Yarmouk and drove it away from Syria. Then, the Muslims invaded Mesopotamia, dominated by Persia, and in 642 they occupied Persia and Alexandria (and with it, the whole Egypt). From Egypt, further campaigns conquered Northern Africa.

http://news.softpedi...rld-77799.shtml


Today, Islam is known as a terrorist religion, extremist religion etc. who is responsible for the biddah of extremism in Islam.




Yes. Thats the way it goes Brother. Omar is responsible attributing those things to Islam.

#8 Panzerwaffe

Panzerwaffe

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,227 posts
  • Location:USA ( my heart is in KUFA )

Posted 13 March 2010 - 10:49 AM

so everyone who part in those biddahs is equally guilty ?

#9 zakzaki

zakzaki

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 787 posts
  • Religion:Islam
  • Interests:Al Mutao khayrun minaz Zina and Triple Talaq

Posted 13 March 2010 - 10:49 AM

references ? ur kiddin me right ....u guys use copy paste as a crutch most of these books u havent even seen let alone read


so you are denying Fatima (as) was threatened/attacked by Umar and She died angry with Abubakr and Umar.

#10 Panzerwaffe

Panzerwaffe

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,227 posts
  • Location:USA ( my heart is in KUFA )

Posted 13 March 2010 - 10:51 AM

^ YES ....but lets stick to conquests in this thread, plz answer my question in post8

#11 Ali Askari

Ali Askari

    Allah as-Samad

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,695 posts
  • Location:Finland

Posted 13 March 2010 - 10:51 AM

so everyone who part in those biddahs is equally guilty ?



Leader is much more guilty.

#12 Panzerwaffe

Panzerwaffe

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,227 posts
  • Location:USA ( my heart is in KUFA )

Posted 13 March 2010 - 10:52 AM

but others are too nevertheless ?

plus all the honorable pious individuals i mentioned in my earlier post WERE leaders in their specific battles or expedition

Edited by Panzerwaffe, 13 March 2010 - 10:53 AM.


#13 zakzaki

zakzaki

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 787 posts
  • Religion:Islam
  • Interests:Al Mutao khayrun minaz Zina and Triple Talaq

Posted 13 March 2010 - 10:53 AM

^ YES ....but lets stick to conquests in this thread, plz answer my question in post8


Maybe love blinds one, and I am sticking on the topic i.e. extremism.

#14 Ali Askari

Ali Askari

    Allah as-Samad

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,695 posts
  • Location:Finland

Posted 13 March 2010 - 10:54 AM

but others are too nevertheless ?



Yes.

#15 Abdaal

Abdaal

    Member

  • Banned
  • 4,213 posts

Posted 13 March 2010 - 10:58 AM

but others are too nevertheless ?

plus all the honorable pious individuals i mentioned in my earlier post WERE leaders in their specific battles or expedition

Later a lot of these pious Muslims became governors of these "illegitimate invaded" nations.

Edited by Abdaal, 13 March 2010 - 10:59 AM.


#16 zakzaki

zakzaki

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 787 posts
  • Religion:Islam
  • Interests:Al Mutao khayrun minaz Zina and Triple Talaq

Posted 13 March 2010 - 10:59 AM

^ YES ....but lets stick to conquests in this thread, plz answer my question in post8


and some more references for your GK

http://www.abubakr.org/

#17 Ali Askari

Ali Askari

    Allah as-Samad

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,695 posts
  • Location:Finland

Posted 13 March 2010 - 11:00 AM

Anyone who is trying to justify their actions has different religion than us. Lets make that clear.

#18 Qa'im

Qa'im

    The Hadith Guy

  • Mods
  • 4,657 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 13 March 2010 - 11:55 AM

(salam)

I think the idea of a conquest itself is lawful, but 'Ali (as) would have carried them out differently than 'Umar.

From Sheikh as-Saduq: http://www.tashayyu.org/hidaya/jihad

Jihad is of four types: two of the jihads are fard, one jihad is sunna and is not established except with a fard, and one jihad which is sunna.

As to the first of the two fard, it is the battle of a man with his own self (to refrain) from sinning against Allah. It is of the greatest of jihads. (The other jihad is the) battle to distinguish yourselves from the unbelievers, it is fard.

As to the jihad that is sunna and not established except with a fard, it is the fighting against the enemies that becomes fard on the entire Umma. If they should neglect the jihad, then punishment will come to them; this is from the punishment of the Umma. It is sunna upon the Imam that he come to the enemy with the Umma and do jihad against them.


And from Sheikh at-Tusi: http://www.tashayyu..../kitab-al-jihad

æåæ ÝÑÖ Úáì ÇáßÝÇíÉ ÅÐÇ ÞÇã Èå ÇáÈÚÖ ÓÞØ Úä ÇáÈÇÞíä.æÔÑÇÆØ æÌæÈå ÓÈÚÉ:

1 - 5 - ÇáÐßæÑÉ¡ æÇáÈáæÛ æßãÇá ÇáÚÞá¡ æÇáÕÍÉ¡ æÇáÍÑíÉ.

6 - æÃä áÇ íßæä ÔíÎÇ áíÓ Èå ÞíÇã.

7 - æíßæä åäÇß ÅãÇã ÚÇÏá Ãæ ãä äÕÈå ÇáÇãÇã ááÌåÇÏ.ÝÅÐÇ ÇÎÊá æÇÍÏ ãä åÐå ÇáÔÑæØ ÓÞØ ÝÑÖå [æáã íÓÞØ ÇáÇÓÊÍÈÇÈ Ó Î].

It is an obligation (fard) upon sufficiency (al-kifaya), when it is established by some it is dropped from the remaining. There are seven conditions for its being obligatory upon someone:

1 - 5 – masculinity, maturity (bulugh), completeness of `aql (i.e. not insane), health, freedom (i.e. not being a slave)

6 – that he not be an elder (shaykh) who is not able to rise (?)

7 – that there be a just Imam or one whom the Imam has appointed for jihad.

So when one of these conditions are not fulfilled, its obligation is dropped [and the desirability (al-istihbab) is not dropped].


As we see from this risalah, the involvement in conquests relies on the presence of one of the twelve A'immah (as). Right now, our Imam (as) is in occultation, and in this period we are not to lead any conquests except in that of self defense. It has been forbidden for us for the time being.

From Imam 'Ali "Zayn al-'Abideen" ibn Hussein as-Sajjad (as) in his Sahifa: http://www.al-islam....hifa/dua27.html

7 O God, through that
strengthen the prowess124 of the People of Islam,
fortify their cities,
increase their properties,
give them ease
from their fighting
to worship Thee
and from their warfare
to be alone with Thee,
so that none will be worshipped
in the regions of the earth but Thee
and no forehead of theirs may be rubbed in dust
for less than Thee!
8 O God,
send out the Muslims of every region on raids against
the idolaters who face them!
Reinforce them with angels in ranks from Thee,
till the idolaters are routed by them to the end of the land,
slain in Thy earth or taken captive,
or till they admit that Thou art God,
other than whom there is no god,
Thou alone, who hast no associate!


If the Imams were given the Caliphate, and lacked the annoyance of people like Mu'awiya, Zubayr, 'Amr ibn al-Aas, Marwan ibn al-Hakam and others, it would have been obligatory on them to do conquests, and it would be obligatory on his followers to take part in them. We don't know how he would carry them out and how they would differ from the Caliphs, but we do have the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) who had taken part in several conquests near the end of his life (Khaybar, Ta'if, etc.)

#19 zakzaki

zakzaki

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 787 posts
  • Religion:Islam
  • Interests:Al Mutao khayrun minaz Zina and Triple Talaq

Posted 13 March 2010 - 12:01 PM

Imam Ali (as) wars after prophet (pbuh) death were mainly with hypocrites who called themselves muslims such as Kharijis and Mawiya (LA).

Please give name 1 battle that Imam Ali (as) fought for expansion of Islamic empire other than defensive wars with Prophet (pbuh).

Imam Ali (as) also refused to fight wars in the armies of AbuBakr, Umar and Uthman. and he refused to follow their sunnah.

Edited by zakzaki, 13 March 2010 - 12:02 PM.


#20 Ali Askari

Ali Askari

    Allah as-Samad

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,695 posts
  • Location:Finland

Posted 13 March 2010 - 12:02 PM

Conquest is the term when you siege the power. The illegal war would be start conquesring nations whitout foregein nations themselves start war against muslims.

#21 ibnhaidarali

ibnhaidarali

    Member

  • Banned
  • 118 posts
  • Religion:Ahlus Sunnah
  • Interests:Sunni / Shia discourse

Posted 13 March 2010 - 12:16 PM

The prophet (pbuh) brought the religion of Islam which means peace. Neither in his lifetime he declared any war against anyone, nor did he force anyone to convert and all wars in his lifetime were fought in defense and not offense.

The Quran also declares that there is no force in religion.

But Umar who introduced many biddahs also started the biddah of conquering lands in the name of Islam.

the conquests started during the caliph Omar (634-644). In 635, he conquered Damask and in 636, the army chief Halid ibn-al-Walid destroyed the Byzantine Army in the battle of Yarmouk and drove it away from Syria. Then, the Muslims invaded Mesopotamia, dominated by Persia, and in 642 they occupied Persia and Alexandria (and with it, the whole Egypt). From Egypt, further campaigns conquered Northern Africa.

http://news.softpedi...rld-77799.shtml


Today, Islam is known as a terrorist religion, extremist religion etc. who is responsible for the biddah of extremism in Islam.



Hmm i think i can see where you're coming from:

During whose caliphate was the fire worshipping Empire of Persia conquered?

Believe me the Persians majoos still haven't got over their defeat to the Arabs...

#22 zakzaki

zakzaki

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 787 posts
  • Religion:Islam
  • Interests:Al Mutao khayrun minaz Zina and Triple Talaq

Posted 13 March 2010 - 01:12 PM

Hmm i think i can see where you're coming from:

During whose caliphate was the fire worshipping Empire of Persia conquered?

Believe me the Persians majoos still haven't got over their defeat to the Arabs...


I am not Persian and I am not hurt with Umar's conquering Persia and I am not a racist to be proud of Arabs.

I just want the justification of Umar's conquest with regards to comparing the Prophet (pbuh) and his Ahlaibaith (as) who spread religion with manners and not sword.

#23 ibnhaidarali

ibnhaidarali

    Member

  • Banned
  • 118 posts
  • Religion:Ahlus Sunnah
  • Interests:Sunni / Shia discourse

Posted 13 March 2010 - 01:54 PM

I am not Persian and I am not hurt with Umar's conquering Persia and I am not a racist to be proud of Arabs.

I just want the justification of Umar's conquest with regards to comparing the Prophet (pbuh) and his Ahlaibaith (as) who spread religion with manners and not sword.


I'm referring to the shia clergy who sit in Qum and Najaf who concocted this argument against ahlus sunnah - they indeed have much resentment to the fact that the Persian Majoosi Empire was overran by the Arabs. You have only followed your clergymen in their arguments as you have taken your understanding from them.

Secondly this thread shows the futility of your understanding of Al Islam as Allah legislated Jihaad to overcome oppression in the ar'd:

Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah[] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (At-Tawbah 9:29)

That is the right religion, so wrong not yourselves therein, and fight against the Mushrikûn (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh) collectively[], as they fight against you collectively. But know that Allâh is with those who are Al-Muttaqûn (the pious - see V.2:2). (At-Tawbah 9:36)

O Prophet (Muhammad SAW)! Strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be harsh against them, their abode is Hell, - and worst indeed is that destination. (At-Tawbah 9:73)

Verily, Allâh has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allâh's Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur'ân. And who is truer to his covenant than Allâh? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success. (At-Tawbah 9:111)

#24 Praetorius

Praetorius

    Chaos Knight

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,789 posts
  • Location:Hell's Entrance
  • Interests:Life, and how to take it away from others

Posted 13 March 2010 - 02:04 PM

I'm referring to the shia clergy who sit in Qum and Najaf who concocted this argument against ahlus sunnah - they indeed have much resentment to the fact that the Persian Majoosi Empire was overran by the Arabs. You have only followed your clergymen in their arguments as you have taken your understanding from them.

Secondly this thread shows the futility of your understanding of Al Islam as Allah legislated Jihaad to overcome oppression in the ar'd:

Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah[] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (At-Tawbah 9:29)

That is the right religion, so wrong not yourselves therein, and fight against the Mushrikûn (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh) collectively[], as they fight against you collectively. But know that Allâh is with those who are Al-Muttaqûn (the pious - see V.2:2). (At-Tawbah 9:36)

O Prophet (Muhammad SAW)! Strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be harsh against them, their abode is Hell, - and worst indeed is that destination. (At-Tawbah 9:73)

Verily, Allâh has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allâh's Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur'ân. And who is truer to his covenant than Allâh? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success. (At-Tawbah 9:111)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but by quoting these verses, are you suggesting that it is the duty of every Muslim to fight every living human being until they've accepted the word of God or they agree to pay Jizya? Depending on your answer we'll take off from there.
(wasalam)

Edited by Legio Invicta, 13 March 2010 - 02:05 PM.


#25 zakzaki

zakzaki

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 787 posts
  • Religion:Islam
  • Interests:Al Mutao khayrun minaz Zina and Triple Talaq

Posted 13 March 2010 - 02:07 PM

I'm referring to the shia clergy who sit in Qum and Najaf who concocted this argument against ahlus sunnah - they indeed have much resentment to the fact that the Persian Majoosi Empire was overran by the Arabs. You have only followed your clergymen in their arguments as you have taken your understanding from them.

Secondly this thread shows the futility of your understanding of Al Islam as Allah legislated Jihaad to overcome oppression in the ar'd:

Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah[] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (At-Tawbah 9:29)

That is the right religion, so wrong not yourselves therein, and fight against the Mushrikûn (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh) collectively[], as they fight against you collectively. But know that Allâh is with those who are Al-Muttaqûn (the pious - see V.2:2). (At-Tawbah 9:36)

O Prophet (Muhammad SAW)! Strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be harsh against them, their abode is Hell, - and worst indeed is that destination. (At-Tawbah 9:73)

Verily, Allâh has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allâh's Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur'ân. And who is truer to his covenant than Allâh? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success. (At-Tawbah 9:111)


This is the reason why Prophet (pbuh) said he is leaving 2 weighty things and neither of them can be separated (i.e. Quran and Ahlaibaith (as))

You cannot take Quran for face value and give your wahabi justification for fighting and Conquering in the name of Islam. If that was the case Prophet (pbuh) would be the first to fight war in offense.

You need to turn to the school of Ahlebaith (as) for the correct understanding of controversial verses because they are the teachers and not face value with which wahabis are justifying Jihad.

Edited by zakzaki, 13 March 2010 - 02:09 PM.




Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users