Jump to content
Mawdudi

ALI (RA) DIDN'T TAKE PART IN ANY CONQUESTS?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Only thing that I know that Imam Ali(as) just advised Umar for staying at Medina instead of going to battlefront & Salman (ra) in Kasra helped the Muslims Army to conquer it peacefully nothing more.

Brother that was strategic advice so Muslims don't lose their caliph 

Generally the early futuhat were not as bloody as in Iraq and Syria people were already sick of Roman and sassanian tax exploitation  and the big war between them just a few years earlier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2018 at 8:33 AM, AbdusSibtayn said:

No brother, I think you've misunderstood what brother @Ashvazdanghe tried to say. He is saying that he did not use the stipends for himself despite accepting them, but spent them elsewhere on other tasks, such as freeing slaves. For his personal expenses, he had khums from his followers. This is the shi'i position.

Brother Id like to see how the poor impoverished followers of imam Ali paid Khums if it was not from the stipend they got from baytulmal or their own participation in wars 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Panzerwaffe said:

Brother Id like to see how the poor impoverished followers of imam Ali paid Khums if it was not from the stipend they got from baytulmal or their own participation in wars 

At time of Imam Ali (as) only people that were participating in war would pay Khums and non of followers  of Imam Ali (as) participated in wars & during his caliphate he was paying equal amount of  money to everyone from poor or rich without any difference from baytulmal also during time of his caliphate muslims didnt have Jihad war so they didn't pay the khums.

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Panzerwaffe said:

Brother Id like to see how the poor impoverished followers of imam Ali paid Khums if it was not from the stipend they got from baytulmal or their own participation in wars 

I have not denied the fact that his followers were cooperating with the government, dear brother, and perhaps under his (as) own advice. I may be mistaken, but nor do I think that all his followers were impoverished, Salman (ra), Uthman ibn Hunayf (ra) and some others were working for the government in administrative capacity, plus the Imam(as) also earned his livelihood, I can't recall them at the moment, but I have read hadiths in Sunni Sihah that mention him caring for camels and tending to palm groves as late as the reign of Uthman ibn Affan, he had grown up sons who could support him, etc etc. As it is, his needs were very few, his lifestyle very frugal, so he could make do with little money.

Of course people are going to have different interpretations of history, and weigh different evidences differently; that's the reason why denominational differences exist in the first place. I admit that i don't know much about this issue, maybe someone more knowledgeable can answer your questions. :) 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2018 at 11:23 AM, ShiaMan14 said:

Salaam brother,

From a pure Islamic perspective, offensive wars are not permitted. Expansionism is not permitted for the sake of land grabbing. The battles fought during the time of the Prophet were either to defend Muslims or their properties.

Absolutely not. The conquests were the worst thing they did. It was the result of these conquests that Islam became associated with barbarism.

Furthermore, Imam Ali (as) didn't give bayah. He agreed to rescind his claim to the caliphate but that is not the same as giving bayah.

Lastly, Islam preaches "live and let live" not conquer or be conquered.

 

 

 

 

There are quite a few narrations that mention offensive jihad in our books. The expansions spread Islam, alhamdulillah. Those who associate Islam with barbarism because of the conquests know nothing about history, I remember reading how one Christian scholar was angry at the Muslim conquerors because he felt they gave the jews too many rights and treated them too well. There is no evidence that Imam Ali (as) opposed the conquests, on the contrary he advised Umar in the conquest of Persia. Not only that but the top companions of Ali (as) participated in the conquests. I don't know where you get the idea that Islam preaches "live and let live", do you know what our Master Al Hujjat Ibn Al Hassan (as) will do when he returns? I'll just say he isn't bringing flowers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Shi3i_jadeed said:

The expansions spread Islam, alhamdulillah.

I beg to disagree, brother. The legitimacy of the conquests aside, it is now an established fact in the academia that these conquerors did nothing to spread Islam by converting the conquered populace, if anything, they discouraged conversions because that would decrease revenue via jiziya. The official policy of both the Umayyad and Abbasid governments , and the successive Sultanates they spawned,regarding conversions was a hands- off one, and the first three Caliphs treated the conquests as Arab subjugation of a non-Arab populace (ref: the wretched condition of the 'mawali' converts, the Arab-Ajam schism), rather than conquests for the sake of spreading Islam. Islam spread in South and Central Asia and West Africa through the agency of Muslim saints, and in North Africa through a combination of overland trade and itinerant preaching, and in South East Asia through seafaring trade. 

Read the book 'The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier' by Richard M. Eaton to know where I am coming from, the Bengalis form the second largest Muslim ethnic group after the Arabs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

I beg to disagree, brother. The legitimacy of the conquests aside, it is now an established fact in the academia that these conquerors did nothing to spread Islam by converting the conquered populace, if anything, they discouraged conversions because that would decrease revenue via jiziya. The official policy of both the Umayyad and Abbasid governments , and the successive Sultanates they spawned,regarding conversions was a hands- off one, and the first three Caliphs treated the conquests as Arab subjugation of a non-Arab populace (ref: the wretched condition of the 'mawali' converts, the Arab-Ajam schism), rather than conquests for the sake of spreading Islam. Islam spread in South and Central Asia and West Africa through the agency of Muslim saints, and in North Africa through a combination of overland trade and itinerant preaching, and in South East Asia through seafaring trade. 

Read the book 'The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier' by Richard M. Eaton to know where I am coming from, the Bengalis form the second largest Muslim ethnic group after the Arabs.

Yes I know this. For instance when the Muslim conquerors took Fustat they basically just built a city right next to the established one and didn't mix with the conquered people. They spread the domain of the Muslim state which allowed Islam to eventually spread in those areas. I'm well aware of the problems under early Muslim empires, I don't romanticize the conquests but I think they were overall good and either way they were legitimate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Shi3i_jadeed said:

Yes I know this. For instance when the Muslim conquerors took Fustat they basically just built a city right next to the established one and didn't mix with the conquered people. They spread the domain of the Muslim state which allowed Islam to eventually spread in those areas. I'm well aware of the problems under early Muslim empires, I don't romanticize the conquests but I think they were overall good and either way they were legitimate. 

The Muslim empire spread, not islam.

You are romanticizing the expansion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is better to go back to original meaning of the words rather than using current common understanding words. Probably, creating or referring dictionary which has most right and complete of word from Arabic into other languages. Or creating new dicitionary ?

Because this is the misunderstanding among/between human and members of shiachat.

Edited by myouvial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2018 at 11:30 PM, Mawdudi said:

Asaalaamualaikum,

I'm a Hanafi Sunni and I have recently been researching the conquests conducted after the death of Rasoolullah (saw) and tbh this is quite a depressing subject to read about. Abu Bakr waged a war against Byzantium, Umar invaded Persia, Uthman invaded East Africa and Afghanistan, the Ummayads took the rest of North Africa and Spain and so on and so on... etc. But I think to myself... WHY?  to me... all of this sounds like ISIS ideology... just expansion on steroids. Is it really an Islamic belief that we should conquer the world and enforce sharia on everyone? Id likes to think not.

Islam, today, is pretty much restricted to the areas which were conquered during that time (including iran) and if you consider war on Persian empire etc as wrongful then Imam Hussain (as) could not also have rightfully taken princess Shehrbano as her wife (as she would not have been a slave). Also, try to read more, as earlier Muslims always sought to spread message of Islam peacefully and wrote letters to leaders all around the world to allow them to invite people to Allah and only when they were not allowed to reach out to people that they resisted with force.

On 4/8/2018 at 11:30 PM, Mawdudi said:

However, one interesting thing that caught my attention is that Hazrat Ali (RA) didn't take part in any conquests after the death of Rasoolullah. My Question is that is this completely true and if so then why?

Ali (as) along with Ammar Ibn Yasir (as), did take part in Ridda wars and commanded 1/3rd of the army. Ali attacked the apostates, like a Lion reciting his famous rijziya poetry while Ammar was busy giving the best he could (he even lost one ear). Imam Hasan (as) also had gone to wars and earned war booty like Ali.

On 4/8/2018 at 11:30 PM, Mawdudi said:

Many sunnies would say that it was because he was a valuable asset to the ummah and therefore stayed in Madinah and helped the Khalifas with state affairs. But that just doesn't add up, because Ali (RA) fought in all the major battles (Badr, Uhud, Khaybar etc.) and indeed he was a great warrior. SO WHAT IS THE REAL REASON THAT ALI (RA) DIDNT TAKE PART IN THESE CONQUESTS???? PLEASE EXPLAIN (USING REFERENCES)

In the battles of Badr, Uhud and Khaybar, Muslim armies were very small in number AND EVEN WOMEN HAD TO JOIN. In badr e.g they were 313, Uhud about 700 or at Khyber roughly 1600 however during the conquests of Makah the companions were already 10000+ and increasing. So yes he was a very very valuable asset just like the caliph of Islam at that time who also did not go to the wars as the much expanded Islamic empire now had to be handled as per strategy best suited to it interests. Even prophet (saw) did not go to all the battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2018 at 12:00 AM, Shi3i_jadeed said:

There are quite a few narrations that mention offensive jihad in our books. The expansions spread Islam, alhamdulillah. Those who associate Islam with barbarism because of the conquests know nothing about history, I remember reading how one Christian scholar was angry at the Muslim conquerors because he felt they gave the jews too many rights and treated them too well. There is no evidence that Imam Ali (as) opposed the conquests, on the contrary he advised Umar in the conquest of Persia. Not only that but the top companions of Ali (as) participated in the conquests. I don't know where you get the idea that Islam preaches "live and let live", do you know what our Master Al Hujjat Ibn Al Hassan (as) will do when he returns? I'll just say he isn't bringing flowers.

Salam 

I agree completely , it's interesting to note the opposition to uthman started amongst companions of Ali over the lands of sawad  conquered lands and their distribution of taxes , this was led by Al Ashtar who himself was a great hero of these wars 

Even kumayl a relatively minor companion of Ali participated in those futuhat

In fact You would be hard pressed to find any major companion of Ali who wasn't a participant in the futuhat

Edited by Panzerwaffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, ali_fatheroforphans said:

Can you prove your position based on the Quran?

Ahlul Bayt (as) are themselves a hujjah. I don't see what the problem is with the idea is, there isn't any evidence the ahlul bayt (as) themselves opposed the futuhat we only have evidence that they would have supported and benefited from them. 
You could use the ayah as an evidence. 
وَقَاتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّى لاَ تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ كُلُّهُ لِلّه فَإِنِ انتَهَوْاْ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ بِمَا يَعْمَلُونَ بَصِيرٌ
(8:39)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam, 

Without using the Quran, I'm going to give you a question based on logical terms.

If you have a group of friends or relatives and they want to start a fight with another group of people, without any good reasoning, would you go and fight with your friends? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, حسين said:

Salam, 

Without using the Quran, I'm going to give you a question based on logical terms.

If you have a group of friends or relatives and they want to start a fight with another group of people, without any good reasoning, would you go and fight with your friends? 

Walaykum Salam
This is a bad analogy. The empires that were fought were decadent oppressors, a lot of the conquered peoples saw the conquerors as liberators. The thing is that if an infallible imam tells you to do something there is no and's if's or but's. He is the representative of Allah on earth.  In that time an imam was present and his companions fought in the conquests. There is no reason to assume he didn't approve on the contrary there is evidence of him helping. That being said I don't believe in offensive jihad in the ghaybah to be permissible it can only be done with the permission/approval or under the command of an infallible imam. 

Edited by Shi3i_jadeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shi3i_jadeed said:

Walaykum Salam
This is a bad analogy. The empires that were fought were decadent oppressors, a lot of the conquered peoples saw the conquerors as liberators. The thing is that if an infallible imam tells you to do something there is no and's if's or but's. He is the representative of Allah on earth.  In that time an imam was present and his companions fought in the conquests. There is no reason to assume he didn't approve on the contrary there is evidence of him helping. That being said I don't believe in offensive jihad in the ghaybah to be permissible it can only be done with the permission/approval or under the command of an infallible imam. 

Salam,

Im at fault, I only gave the analogy upon reading the title, I'll give the topic a read later and edit my answers. In effect I still stand by my question, because in my own opinion from reading about Abu bakr and those other 2 only fought for money and power. Not for justice, or anything similar to what imam Ali a.s fought for.

Imam Ali a.s. fought to guide righteous men, which yes means he needed to have some sort of power over the people. Just not the same power those companions were seeking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ali_fatheroforphans said:

Can you prove your position based on the Quran?

Ayatullah al-Uzma as -Sayyid al- Khu'i (rh) subscribed to this view as well, brother. And as far as I know, Ayatullah al-Uzma as Sayyid al-Khamenei (ha) also holds a similar position. But know that permitting offensive jihad in Ghaybatul Kubra is a minority position among the fuqaha, however, it exists nonetheless.

Edited by AbdusSibtayn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

Ayatullah al-Uzma as -Sayyid al- Khu'i (rh) subscribed to this view as well, brother. And as far as I know, Ayatullah al-Uzma as Sayyid al-Khamenei (ha) also holds a similar position. But know that permitting offensive jihad in Ghaybatul Kubra is a minority position among the fuqaha, however, it exists nonetheless.

Yeah and Allama Mutahari even wrote a whole book where he discussed all the verses of Jihad from Quran. It was very clear that Quran never instructs us to force religion on people (ie offensive jihad).

When Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) wanted to spread the message of Islam to the kings in other countries, he wrote letters, which is recorded in history.

I personally don't think Islam teaches offensive jihad, to go to a country and start attacking them if they prefer peace over war. 

Edited by ali_fatheroforphans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ali_fatheroforphans said:

I personally don't think Islam teaches offensive jihad, to go to a country and start attacking them if they prefer peace over war.

Brother, first we need to understand what offensive Jihad means.
It means that if enemies are obstructing a Prophet from preaching his message to the people through use of force, the Prophet is also authorized by Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى to use military force to remove that obstacle, and indeed this decision is taken on a case to case basis. For eg. note the different approaches Rasoolallah (sawa) followed towards the king of Ethiopia and the Meccans. Offensive jihad is akin to what is called the 'just war theory' in present day geopolitics- a preemptive or preventive war to remove the military threat from you enemies; it is the response to, and not the initiation of hostilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam,

 

Isn't there a diffirence between wars led by the Prophet s.a.w.a.s. and those not led by him s.a.w.a.s.?

I believe imam Ali a.s. acted along these lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only conquest which was based on mutual consent was the conquest of al-Andalus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×