Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Imamology

  • entries
    38
  • comments
    383
  • views
    15,465

Spread by the Sword?


Qa'im

6,490 views

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

           

            Not only is Islam the second-largest religion in the world, but it is the world’s fastest growing religion. With globalization and the influx of Muslim immigration to the West, many people are reluctantly meeting Muslims for the first time. Fear of the unknown is common, but that fear is constantly perpetuated by images of violence in the Muslim world. As a visible minority with little political leverage, the Muslim community is an easy target for xenophobes, warmongers, and nationalists. The Muslim world is the needed bogeyman for the military-industrial complex, private security companies, and isolationist politicians to thrive. Rather than trying to understand the complex imperial and economic variables that cause violence in the Muslim world, it is both simpler and more cunning to resort to generalized arguments about Islam. This view, however, overlooks the many scientific and philosophical contributions Muslims have made to Western civilization. More importantly, it distorts the reality of the Muslim civilization’s mostly-tolerant history. The centuries-old narrative that Islam was “spread by the sword” is still popular today, and it causes Muslims living in the West to be looked at as a suspicious Trojan horse waiting to Islamize the world. It is therefore necessary for us to deconstruct this worldview. This paper will briefly explore the rise and expansion of Islam, and demonstrate that tolerance and plurality were founding principles of Islamic ethics.

            Since the early days of the Prophet Muhammad’s ministry, Islam’s relationship with non-Muslim communities has been notable. Shortly after the Muslim migration to Medina (then known as Yathrib) in 622 CE, the Prophet drafted the Constitution of Medina. This charter put an end to tribal infighting in Medina, created a new judicial system, guaranteed the mutual protection of Muslims and non-Muslims, and established a new “Community of Believers (mu’mineen)”. (Gil, 2004, pp. 21) This community would include the Jewish tribes of Medina, while still recognizing their distinct identity and laws. Although Bernard Lewis claims that the Constitution of Medina was a unilateral proclamation by Muhammad, (Lewis, 1993, pp. 22) Muslim sources generally referred to it as a pact between the Muslims and the Jews following the two pledges at `Aqaba. Furthermore, Wellhausen, a German orientalist, regarded this charter to be a multilateral agreement negotiated between all of the involved groups. (Gil, 2004, pp. 22)

            The Prophet Muhammad also ratified writs of protection to other communities. The Ashtiname of Muhammad, which was written by `Ali b. Abi Talib upon the commission of Muhammad, granted privileges to the Christian monks of St. Catherine’s Monastery in Egypt. (Ratliff, 2012, pp. 63) The document guarantees that Christians are not to be overtaxed, plundered, disturbed, or coerced into marriages. (Morrow, 2013) These covenants demonstrate that the Prophet pursued a peaceful and tolerant coexistence with other communities, and made his followers accountable to ethical principles of justice.            

The Prophet Muhammad very plainly stressed the equality of all people, regardless of tribe, colour, class, or ethnicity. While rights differed among subgroups of society, the Islamic civilization held no concept of the natural subordination of individuals or groups. (Hamid, 1982, pp. 127) Conversion to Islam only required a simple declaration of faith, while becoming a member of the ancient Greek polity was only possible for Greek male property owners. (Hamid, 1982, pp. 127)  The egalitarianism of the Quranic message was attractive to many who sought social refuge from the caste system and other forms of subordination. (Eaton, 1992, pp. 117)

The Caliphate’s medieval conquests, which occurred after the Prophet Muhammad, are the main source of agitation among those suspicious of Muslims. It should be noted that `Ali b. Abi Talib, who is considered the rightful successor to Muhammad by Shia Muslims, refrained from taking part in these conquests, despite being renowned as a great warrior. There should be no doubt that there were incidents that occurred during early expansion that are not in line with the teachings of the Prophet, especially during the ridda wars and the Battle of `Ulays. The Shia Imams consistently held the Caliphate accountable during mistrials and in moments of nepotism; and they struggled to establish social and economic justice in the Muslim world. But, the frame that the Islamic conquests were wholly or mostly negative is a Eurocentric view that does not account for other pieces of the puzzle.

            Many ancient texts document extensive Judeo-Christian support for the Muslim conquests of Byzantium and Persia. Jews in the Levant had expected a redeemer who would deliver them from the Roman occupiers. (Crone, 1977, pp. 3-6) The Romans had destroyed the Jerusalem Temple in 134 CE, outlawed Jews from living within ten miles of Jerusalem, disbanded the Jewish high court, taxed the Jews heavily, and persecuted them for siding with the Persians. This torment ignited a messianic fervour among medieval Jews, leading to a widespread anticipation of a saviour. One of the earliest non-Muslim references to the rise of Islam is the Doctrina Jacobi, a Greek Christian anti-Jewish polemical text written in 634 CE, just two years after the passing of Prophet Muhammad. The text describes “overjoyed” Jews celebrating the Muslim arrival in Byzantium. (Crone, 1977, pp. 3) Moreover, The Secrets of Simon ben Yohai, a Jewish apocalyptic text written between the seventh and eighth centuries CE, tells of the emergence of an Ishmaelite “prophet according to God’s will” who would save the Jewish people from their oppressors. (Crone, 1977, pp. 4-5)

The Islamic conquest of the Levant would restore Jewish access to Jerusalem and establish a polity that would include Muslims, Christians, and Jews alike. The Pact of Umar II, a writ of protection extended by `Umar b. `Abd al-`Aziz in the seventh century, promised safety and the right to worship to Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians in exchange for the payment of the poll tax (jizya). (Berger, 2006, pp. 88) While some orientalists have criticized the Pact’s prohibition on riding horses, Muslim clothing and building high structures, these stipulations may have been placed to prevent insurrections against Muslim garrisons, rather than to humiliate or subordinate non-Muslims.

            The Muslim treatment of non-Muslims was similarly commended by Near Eastern Christians. John bar Penkaye, an East Syriac Nestorian writer of the late seventh century, praised the Muslim overthrow of the Sassanid dynasty. In his Summary of World History, he writes, “We should not think of the advent [of the children of Hagar] as something ordinary, but as due to divine working. Before calling them, [God] had prepared them beforehand to hold Christians in honour, thus they also had a special commandment from God concerning our monastic station, that they should hold it in honour … God put victory in their hands.” (Pearse) This early Christian account documents the just conduct of Muslim rulers, likening it to divine intervention. Furthermore, after the Byzantines had seized control of Egypt and put the Coptic Patriarch Benjamin I of Alexandria into exile, the Muslim conquerors restored Benjamin I’s authority and brought order to the affairs of the Coptic Church.

Many cultures were drawn to Islam’s magnetic social appeal. Indonesia, which is the country with the highest population of Muslims, encountered Arab merchants in the thirteenth century. Along with the arrival of Muslim commercialism, Islamic stories and symbols were introduced to the population through traditional wayang puppet shows. (Hamish, 2011, pp. 46-51) In the Indian subcontinent, Islam provided social mobility to lower castes, giving people equal rights and freeing them from total subservience to the Brahmans. The transformative power of Sufism was also attractive to many Hindus who sought ascetic, mystical brotherhoods. (Lapidus, 1988, pp. 363) Sufi and Shia saints continue to be revered by Hindu and Sikh poets in India.

Although the Muslim empires had a tumultuous relationship with European Christians over the centuries, sizable Christian and Jewish communities with ancient origins continued to thrive in the Muslim world. Moorish and Ottoman confrontations with Christendom have propelled the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword. The fact is, however, that the conversion of the Near East to Islam occurred very gradually. By 800 CE, only 18% of Iraq’s population was Muslim. (Brown, 2016) Furthermore, Egypt, Spain, and the Levant did not attain a Muslim majority until the eleventh century. (Brown 2016) This means that the Muslims were a minority in the heartlands of their own civilization for hundreds of years. While poll taxes and other social pressures certainly promoted conversion to Islam, ancient churches, synagogues, temples, and other relics were maintained. Judeo-Christian populations even had rights to printing presses and European books in the Ottoman Empire – a privilege rarely granted to Muslims. (Brown, 2016) 14% of the Middle East remained Christian by 1910, with significant populations in Syria, Palestine and Egypt. (Brown, 2016)

On the other hand, Christendom had a relatively poor record with minorities. Although Iberia was mostly Muslim in the fifteenth century, all Muslims were expelled or forced to convert to Christianity in 1526. (Brown, 2016) In 1609, 3-4% of Spain’s population consisted of Christian descendants of Muslims, who were also expelled under King Philip the Third. Anti-Jewish pogroms were also common in pre and post-Enlightenment European history. While there are many ancient Christian communities in the Muslim world, there are practically no ancient Muslim communities in the Christian world, despite Islam’s long history in Spain, Portugal, Sicily, and Eastern Europe.

            In recent decades, the Muslim world’s relationship with its non-Muslim minority communities has suffered. Colonialism, neo-imperialism, military dictatorships, and poor economies have sometimes caused the alienation and scapegoating of ethnic and religious minorities in the Muslim world. In June 2014, the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), which rose out of the destabilization of Iraq and Syria, routed Christians out of Mosul. This genocide marked the end of over a thousand years of continuous Muslim-Christian coexistence in the region. While ISIL’s actions are a black mark on modern Islamic history, ISIL’s main military and ideological opponents are other Muslims in the region and around the world. This paper demonstrates that normative Islam seeks unity under common ethical principles. It is vital for Muslims to revive an equitable, pluralistic and tolerant worldview, not just because diversity is strength, but because it is the ethos of our civilization.           

 

Bibliography

Berger, Julia Phillips., and Sue Parker. Gerson. Teaching Jewish History. Springfield, NJ: A.R.E. Pub., 2006. Print.

Pearse, John Bar Penkaye, Summary of World History (Rish Melle) (2010). N.p., n.d. Web. 9 July 2016.

Crone, Patricia, and Michael Cook. Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1977. Print.

Http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4L23Z_agh1qeV_odQfV6Vg. "Dr. Jonathan AC Brown - The Message of Peace Spread by the Sword - UMaine IAW 2016." YouTube. YouTube, 2016. Web. 9 July 2016.

Eaton, Richard Maxwell. The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204-1760. Berkeley: U of California, 1993. Print.

Gil, Moshe, and David Strassler. Jews in Islamic Countries in the Middle Ages. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Print.

Harnish, David D., and Anne K. Rasmussen. Divine Inspirations: Music and Islam in Indonesia. New York: Oxford UP, 2011. Print.

Lapidus, Ira M. A History of Islamic Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1988. Print

Lewis, Bernard. The Arabs in History. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1993. Print.

Morrow, John A. The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.

Ratliff, Brandie, and Helen C. Evans. Byzantium and Islam: Age of Transition, 7th-9th Century. New York, NY: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2012. Print.

ʻInāyat, Ḥamīd. Modern Islamic Political Thought. Austin: U of Texas, 1982. Print.

21 Comments


Recommended Comments

First of all there is proof that Imam Ali helped with those expanisions, namely the conquest of Persia. Shaykh Al-Korani has talked about this.

Secondly, in our Fiqh there is something called offensive Jihad. Whether that is the exclusive right of the infallible Imam or another person can call it is a different issue, the point is not every war in Islam is defensive. Some are expansionist and offensive. 

Sayyed Subah Shubbar nails it:

 

Link to comment
  • Advanced Member

@E.L King can you tell me why Imam Ali a.s. Got involved in those offensive wars? It's very common for Shia scholars and speakers that I've heard to say that Imam Ali a.s. didn't participate in these wars, and was only a judge, or took care of administrative side of things. Thanks.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, YAli said:

@E.L King can you tell me why Imam Ali a.s. Got involved in those offensive wars? It's very common for Shia scholars and speakers that I've heard to say that Imam Ali a.s. didn't participate in these wars, and was only a judge, or took care of administrative side of things. Thanks.

He wasn't actually fighting, Shaykh Al-Korani makes the case that however he was organising the Muslims' Army

Link to comment
  • Veteran Member
On 3/8/2017 at 3:32 PM, E.L King said:

He wasn't actually fighting, Shaykh Al-Korani makes the case that however he was organising the Muslims' Army

If war on offensive is not justified by Allah SWT, why Imam Ali a.s. involve in organising 'the Muslim Army' ?

If war on offensive is justified by Allah SWT, why Imam Ali a.s. only involve in organising 'the Muslim Army' ?

If what Imam Ali a.s. was doing ( organising 'the Muslim Army') is justified/not justified by Allah SWT, :

a. what is the proof of Allah SWT's justification

b. is Imam Ali a.s.'s power of faith to Allah SWT is lower/higher than the power of the will of the Muslim Army ?

Link to comment
  • Advanced Member

@E.L King

@myouvial has a point, even organising the army would mean Imam Ali a.s. is involved in this 'unjust' war. It's still involvement, whether on the front-lines, or the "back office" to use today's business world language. 

Link to comment
  • Site Administrators

Whilst it's 'possible' that Islam is the fastest growing religion (though there is no empirical evidence of it; Indian Hindus are converting to Christianity in droves to escape the cast system), Atheism/Agnosticism, if they were considered a 'religion', would most likely account for a larger shift in individual beliefs.

Link to comment
  • Veteran Member

"Many cultures were drawn to Islam’s magnetic social appeal. Indonesia, which is the country with the highest population of Muslims, encountered Arab merchants in the thirteenth century. Along with the arrival of Muslim commercialism, Islamic stories and symbols were introduced to the population through traditional wayang puppet shows. (Hamish, 2011, pp. 46-51) In the Indian subcontinent, Islam provided social mobility to lower castes, giving people equal rights and freeing them from total subservience to the Brahmans. The transformative power of Sufism was also attractive to many Hindus who sought ascetic, mystical brotherhoods. (Lapidus, 1988, pp. 363) Sufi and Shia saints continue to be revered by Hindu and Sikh poets in India."

====

I do not have authentic reference, everything i know i keep in my mind.

I read from internet :

Mu'awiyah or his rezime send the mercenary to Sriwijaya Kingdom in South of Sumatera and they refer the Kingdom as the country of elephant (as there are a lot elephant at that era.)

Many tomb with the Islamic name (or may even Ahlul Bayt a.s.'s name such as Fatimah etc).

A lot of culture and the clue of Ahlul Bayt a.s. such as one of the son of Imam Ja'far Shadiq a.s. moved to Indonesia/Nusantara area.

So the introduction of Islam to Indonesia is far before 13th century. And the introduction is through culture adaptation (amal ma'ruf nahi munkar) not by sword. Eventhough there is Wahhabi movement in the beginning of 19 century in West/North Sumatera, but i guess i see how Allah SWT has His own Will/Destiny, and i hope the movement is getting loose foundation by the teaching of Ahlul Bayt a.s.

Link to comment
On 3/6/2017 at 0:41 AM, E.L King said:

Secondly, in our Fiqh there is something called offensive Jihad. Whether that is the exclusive right of the infallible Imam or another person can call it is a different issue, the point is not every war in Islam is defensive. Some are expansionist and offensive. 

Sayyed Subah Shubbar nails it:

 

But when offensive jihad could happen exactly ?

Link to comment
  • Veteran Member
On 3/14/2017 at 6:17 AM, baqar said:

So, i just read this/your news today.

It seems Australia is worried about the existence of Saudi Arabia (at least from the opinion of the author).

"In the face of the Saudis' relentless, pernicious proselytising, what has Australia done? Cut its aid funding for Indonesian schools and more than halved the number of scholarships it offers to Indonesians to study in Australia."

Well, farewell human. Whatever wil be, it will be. Probably, slaughtering may happen in Indonesia again ?

Link to comment
  • Veteran Member

The basic of Indonesian politic is "bebas aktif" (maybe translated into 'free active') into achieving world peace as the "penjajahan" (or 'occupation') is against human right.

However, the application of "bebas aktif" can overlimit into tolerancy to what ever other countries do in abusing human right. This dangerous politic may achieve the upper limit into deadly (to the country itself) poisonous thinking.  

Link to comment
  • Veteran Member
On 3/10/2017 at 5:43 PM, Ya Aba 3abdillah said:

Whilst it's 'possible' that Islam is the fastest growing religion (though there is no empirical evidence of it; Indian Hindus are converting to Christianity in droves to escape the cast system), Atheism/Agnosticism, if they were considered a 'religion', would most likely account for a larger shift in individual beliefs.

Brother this is not accurate. Islam is the fastest growing religion by birth for which there is an abundance of evidence because virtually every country keeps records of its birth rates and a rough estimate of its religious demographics which are mostly accurate. This is something for which the empirical evidence is overwhelming. Just look at the rise in population in Muslim majority countries over the last 50 years, it's unbelievable. Islam is definitely growing, alhamdulillah.

The problem for the next generations will be defending it from the religion of secular humanism, which has in fact gripped the minds of Muslims to varying degrees and turned their mental conception of the world into one of kufr. The problem is that the ulema of the 60's recognized the kufr of communism because it declared open atheism, and they militantly opposed it. Although they recognize the philosophical problems of "the West" generally, there really has not been this militant and overt opposition to SECULAR HUMANISM which IS the religion of the modern world. The failure to name the phenomenon is, I think, in part why there has been such a lax response to what is easily a far bigger than anything else facing the ummah today. And it is coming in through soft power (cinema, news, etc.)

Link to comment
On 08/03/2017 at 3:32 AM, E.L King said:

He wasn't actually fighting, Shaykh Al-Korani makes the case that however he was organising the Muslims' Army

Brother @Qa'im, could you shed some light on this? I'm confused now. If Imam Ali was involved in organising the Muslims' army, this is basically like him being a part of an offensive war. 

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Latest Blog Entries

    • By Haji 2003 in Contemporania
         0
      Summary
      Winning need not be the goal of every country, getting into the last 16 can be good enough.
      We want to do better next time ...
      Now that the World Cup is over you get the following headlines:

      https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Sports/World-Cup-leaves-Asia-with-pride-regret-ahead-of-old-power-final
       
      But is this where Asian countries really want to be? It seems to me as a casual observer that the better performing teams have the following characteristics (from the group of 16):
      Immigrant players: England, France, Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland (you get the picture) Expat players: Morocco (they have players in the national side who live and play elsewhere) Pool of poor people for whom football is an escape: Senegal; Brazil Strong field sports tradition: Australia and USA Strong national league: Spain (Italy would also be here if they qualified) From the above categories, the outliers are Croatia, Poland, Japan and South Korea. All 4 have exclusively indigenous players, but whose success can't be accounted for by the five factors mentioned above. Switzerland used to be in this category (IIRC), but it's not any more and its performance has improved.
      Matter of national priorities
      In sum I don't think these Asian sides will ever make it much past the final 16. They don't have the tradition in the game and they can't easily draw upon large pools of people who do. Perhaps they could look to Poland and Croatia for some inspiration, but whether they can maintain this level of performance long-term remains to be seen.
      Obvious solutions seem to be having more people go into football, but I am sure lots of parents would be aghast at this (and rightly so).
      Or they could ease up on immigration ...
       
    • By Meedy in Never thought I would see days like these
         4
      My family are being torn apart bit by bit.
      My oldest brother's wife falsely accusing of him cheating and she knows its not true but the wealth and her sisters whispers have blinded her.
      My 2nd old brother's wife or both blame my 3rd brother wife for my failed marriage and told me parents to pick them or us.
      I have my own issues and demons to deal with
      My mind is not strong enough to listen to the news anymore. 
      I see hypocrisy everywhere.
      There are times, I get tested with the same tests,  yet I failed despite knowing the answers. Although I am getting better with God help.
      I think some of us, do get tested in life with same tests, despite knowing the answers, yet sometimes we fail.
      Perhaps some of the tests that we failed, God tests us again with those tests to see give us opportunity to overcome those tests.
      The more we seek to get closer to God, the more Shaytan attack us and perhaps we get tested more than unbelievers. 
      It is very hard to find someone to talk with about God and religious matters. So many people no longer believe in God but if you speak about how did we get here etc, they have no answers or no interest in talking about. Don't they realise, what they have is because God gave to them, everything belongs to God
      The richer people become, they become more stingy. 
      Spiritually I am doing bit better than before as I know how to overcome the tests that I am being tested with.
      I am writing this, because it's very to find someone to talk about such things face to face.
      I apologise, if this blog is approprate.
      God Bless all of yous  
       
    • By Haji 2003 in Contemporania
         0
      In this thread there was a half jokey but also serious issue that I raised:
      At some point Muslims will ask whether conjugal relations with androids are allowed and we can predict the answer will be no.
       
      Since I first started that thread a lot has happened and I think it's worth introducing some new variables to the discussion.
      There was a time when men who dressed as women (and vice versa) did so either for humour or if it was in some way related to their sexuality the attempt would seem a bit ridiculous. Nowadays though fantasy can be more readily realised with the aid of technology.
      In a similar vein men who play with dolls (this is serious, stay with me) are faintly creepy and weird. But technology moves on and at some point the dolls will pass for humans. While orthodox Muslims may well be aghast at the idea of relations between us and the androids, clearly this will be considered to be progress amongst some people. They may not currently regard it as such but their ideological progeny will.
      But then another issue will emerge. If someone gains emotional and other forms of support from their android, what if they want to pass on their wealth to the android? If this sounds utterly crazy, remember that in Germany people can and do pass on their inheritance to pets. In Britain such inheritance can happen, but in a more complicated way.
      So while we have had dystopian science fiction prognosticating about robots AI becoming 'self-aware' and stealing the planet from us what if such a loss can happen without such a confrontational dystopia?
      What if large numbers of humans give up on human-to-human relations and instead take up with androids who will never argue back, will always say yes and be physically whatever people want them to be.
      And as a reward for this their human companions leave their possessions to robots?
      It could be that it is selfishness and narcissism that disinherits us and nothing more sinister.
    • By Haji 2003 in Contemporania
         4
      The 2019 UK election
      As some of you may know Britain had an election in 2019 and the Conservative party (aka Tories), who are on the right of the political spectrum won the most seats in the House of Commons. Their leader was Boris Johnson so he became Prime Minister. I'm pointing this out because UK politics works differently to other systems.
      But various scandals plagued his premiership and earlier this year he was forced to stand down.
      Selecting a new Prime Minister
      This triggered the selection of a new Prime Minister amongst Conservative MPs and once they had short-listed some candidates, these people were put to the vote amongst 180,000 people in the UK who were members of the Conservative party.
      All along it had seemed that the front runner in this election was Rishi Sunak, who had served as Chancellor (finance minister) under Johnson and who was widely regarded as competent.
      Ultimately someone else won, her name as you may have heard in recent days is Liz Truss.
      In a series of debates (some televised) she set put her plans for the economy. During these debates Sunak pointed out that they would lead to disaster.
      Liz Truss
      But Truss was selected by the members of her party and she set about implementing her policy. The result was economic chaos, she had to sack her Chancellor (as a scapegoat) and bring in someone new who would reverse the changes that she had promised.
      Today she has had to resign and a new person will be selected by the Tories as leader.
      The oddity
      One thing that stands out over the past few months is the following story that has been occasionally reported in the mainstream media:
      https://www.ft.com/content/5d4f9455-cad2-43d8-bcd3-de5b038cb67b
      The story is odd because during an election campaign the contestants have a lot of domestic issues to address and debate. Why would a candidate reach out to people about a matter of foreign policy - moving the British embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem?
    • By Haji 2003 in Contemporania
         0
      I think there is.
      It's about the Stans
      As the conflict continues there is media coverage being given to:
      Russia's Asian regions who are physically far from the conflict and who have little vested interest in it, some of the people are Muslims Russia's neighbours who are 'independent', but nevertheless have a close relationship with Moscow e.g. Tajikistan and the latter has specifically voiced concerns I think there is a longer-term attempt to take these regions and countries out of Moscow's orbit.
      Not repeating Western mistakes made in Iraq and Syria
      The problem that will have been recognised in some quarters is that there is a risk these countries will fall into Iran's sphere of influence, which has been the case to some extent in Iraq. The Syrian war was an attempt to take the country out of Iran's orbit, but that has backfired.
      One way to ensure that the mistakes in Iraq and Syria are not repeated is to go after the IRI itself.
      The Iranian link
      And this is what the current protests in Iran are about, either the IRI is replaced in its entirety or it is so pre-occupied internally that it is not able to address changes taking place in the countries to its north.
      The long term
      Longer term I don't think this is about Russia and Iran as much as it is about China. The aim would be to have China surrounded by states that owe some form of allegiance to NATO.
       
    • By Haji 2003 in Contemporania
         0
      TL:DR
      Saudi is increasing investments in sports and entertainment. This is supposedly diversifying the economy away from oil and gas. They are also laying open Saudi to 'international consumer culture' because these industries also rely on international tourists. To cater for the latter you have to accommodate their tastes and these include alcohol, music and the exploitation of women. 
      By investing now in these industries the Saudi government is making itself hostage (deliberately) to a future situation where it has to say to its people, "guys to get a return on our investments we need to relax xyz Sharia based laws".
      If you want a precedent, there is one in Singapore. The country has been a tourism hub for decades. But at one point they relaxed the laws around gambling because they were losing 'high roller' gamblers to Macau and other countries.
      more later...
    • By Islamic Salvation in A Marginalia to Mu'jam
         55
      هلك الناس أجمعون قلت: من في الشرق و من في الغرب؟ قال: فقال: إنها فتحت على الضلال
      All the people were destroyed. I said: whomever was in the east and the west? he said: it (the whole earth) was opened up to misguidance
      هلكوا إلا ثلاثة ثم لحق أبو ساسان و عمار و شتيرة و أبو عمرة فصاروا سبعة
      All were destroyed except three - then they were joined by Abu Sasan, Ammar, Shatira and Abu Amra, so they became seven [Ja`far al-Sadiq]
       
      Did the Sahaba Apostatize?
      There are narrations which indicate that all the companions were destroyed except three, these were then joined by four others, so they became seven who were saved. However, most of the scholars have understood this Halak [destruction] to be that of Dhalal [misguidance] i.e. perished in Salvific terms, not Kufr [disbelief] - which is the opposite of Islam.
       
      Who are the three?
      They are the pillars of the Madhhab. They are explicitly named in some of the narrations below:
      أبي بصير قال: قلت لأبي عبد الله عليه السلام: ارتد الناس إلا ثلاثة: أبو ذر، و سلمان، و المقداد؟ قال: فقال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام: فأين أبو ساسان، و أبو عمرة الأنصاري؟
      [al-Kashshi] Abi Basir said: I said to Abi Abdillah عليه السلام: all the people turned back except for three - Abu Dhar, Salman and Miqdad? Abu Abdillah عليه السلام said: so where is Abu Sasan and Abu Amra al-Ansari?!
      أبي بكر الحضرمى قال: قال أبو جعفر عليه السلام: ارتد الناس إلاثلاثة نفر سلمان وأبو ذر والمقداد. قال: قلت: فعمّار؟ قال عليه السلام: قد كان جاض جيضة ثم رجع ... ثم أناب الناس بعد فكان أول من أناب أبو ساسان الانصاري وأبوعمرة وشتيرة وكانوا سبعة فلم يكن يعرف حق أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام إلاّ هؤلاء السبعة
      [al-Kashshi] Abi Bakr al-Hadhrami said: Abu Ja`far عليه السلام said: the people turned back except three individuals - Salman, Abu Dhar and Miqdad, I said: what about Ammar? He عليه السلام said: he wobbled a bit then he returned [to the truth] … then the people repented after that, so the first ones to return [to the truth] were Abu Sasan al-Ansari, Abu Amra, Shatira, and they became seven, none recognized the right of the commander of the faithful عليه السلام except these seven.
      'then the people repented after that, so the first ones ...' This shows that it was not just these seven, rather, these were the foremost of them. علي بن أبي طالب عليهم السلام قال: خلقت الارض لبسبعة بهم ترزقون وبهم تنصرون وبهم تمطرون منهم سلمان الفارسي والمقداد وأبو ذر وعّمار وحذيفة رحمة اللّه عليهم. وكان علي عليه السلام يقول: وأنا إمامهم وهم الذين صلوا على فاطمة صلوات الله عليها
      [al-Ikhtisas] Ali b. Abi Talib عليه السلام said: the earth was created for seven, because of them you are given sustenance, and because of them you are assisted, and because of them is rain made to fall on you, among them are Salman al-Farsi and al-Miqdad and Abu Dhar and Ammar and Hudhayfa - may Allah have mercy on them. Ali عليه السلام used to say: and I am their Imam, and they are the ones who prayed [Salat al-Mayyit] upon Fatima صلوات الله عليها            
       
      The Three had a higher status than the Four
      حمران قال: قلت لأبي جعفر عليه السلام: ما أقلنا لو اجتمعنا على شاة ما أفنيناها قال: فقال: ألا أخبرك بأعجب من ذلك قال: فقلت: بلى قال: المهاجرون و الأنصار ذهبوا إلا (و أشار بيده) ثلاثة
      [al-Kashshi] Humran said: I said to Abi Ja’far عليه السلام - how few we (the Shias) are! if we gather to eat a sheep we will not be able to finish it, he (Humran) said: so he عليه السلام said: should I not inform you of something even more bewildering? he (Humran) said: I said: yes (do so), he said: the Muhajirun and the Ansar all diverted (i.e. went astray) except for - and he gestured with his hand - three.
      In al-Kulayni’s variant the narration continues:
      قال حمران: فقلت: جعلت فداك ما حال عمار؟ قال: رحم الله عمارا أبا اليقظان بايع وقتل شهيدا، فقلت في نفسي: ما شئ أفضل من الشهادة فنظر إلي فقال: لعلك ترى أنه مثل الثلاثة أيهات أيهات
      Humran said: may I be made your ransom - what is the status of Ammar? He said: may Allah have mercy on Ammar Aba al-Yaqdhan, he pledged allegiance and died a martyr, I said in my heart: what thing is better than martyrdom, so he [the Imam] looked at me and said: perhaps you think that he [Ammar] is like the three [in status], how far! how far! [from truth that opinion is]. 
       
      Does this mean all others became apostates?
      The crux is the meaning of Ridda (ردّة) in these narrations. Whether it is to be understood in a linguistic sense or the technical sense of apostasy. If the latter is taken then it means all the Sahaba became Kafir [out of Islam] for not sticking to Ali.
      Irtidad in the linguistic sense refers to ‘turning back from something’. It has been used with this meaning in a number of verses such as:
      فَلَمَّا أَن جَاء الْبَشِيرُ أَلْقَاهُ عَلَى وَجْهِهِ فَارْتَدَّ بَصِيرًا قَالَ أَلَمْ أَقُل لَّكُمْ إِنِّي أَعْلَمُ مِنَ اللّهِ مَا لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ
      (i) So when the caravan herald [fore-runner] came he threw it on his face so he returned to seeing, he said: did I not say to you that I know from Allah what ye do not (12:96)
      قَالَ الَّذِي عِندَهُ عِلْمٌ مِّنَ الْكِتَابِ أَنَا آتِيكَ بِهِ قَبْلَ أَن يَرْتَدَّ إِلَيْكَ طَرْفُكَ
      (ii) The one who had knowledge of a part of the Book said: I will bring it to you before your glance returns back to you [i.e. you blink and open your eyes again] (27:40)
      مُهْطِعِينَ مُقْنِعِي رُءُوسِهِمْ لاَ يَرْتَدُّ إِلَيْهِمْ طَرْفُهُمْ وَأَفْئِدَتُهُمْ هَوَاء
      (iii) Racing ahead, their heads bowed down, their glances not returning back to them [i.e. unblinking] and their hearts void (14:43)
      Whenever Irtidad from the Diin - ‘turning back’ from the Diin i.e. apostasy in the technical sense is meant, the Qur`an qualifies it by explicitly mentioning Diin.
      يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ مَن يَرْتَدَّ مِنكُمْ عَن دِينِهِ فَسَوْفَ يَأْتِي اللّهُ بِقَوْمٍ يُحِبُّهُمْ وَيُحِبُّونَهُ
      (i) O you who believe, whoever turns back from his Diin from among you then Allah will bring about a people whom He loves and they love Him (5:54)
      وَمَن يَرْتَدِدْ مِنكُمْ عَن دِينِهِ فَيَمُتْ وَهُوَ كَافِرٌ فَأُوْلَئِكَ حَبِطَتْ أَعْمَالُهُمْ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالآخِرَةِ
      (ii) And whoever among you turns back on his Diin and dies whilst being a Kafir then those are they whose deeds have been nullified in the world and the hereafter (2:217)
      It is clear that the narrations about the Irtidad of the Sahaba are not qualified by Diin. To understand that meaning from it would require further proof.
       
      The Chosen Interpretation
      The Irtidad in the narrations should be understood [in light of other narrations] as people turning away, after the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله, from what they had made incumbent on themselves in his صلى الله عليه وآله lifetime, when they gave the Bay`a to Ali b. Abi Talib as the leader of the believers i.e. Irtidad from Wilaya not apostasy from Islam. 
      Instead, they decided to give the Bay`a to someone else because of expediency and other reasons. This was a betrayal of epic proportions that opened up the door of misguidance and innovation in the Diin, however, they had not exited the apparent Islam, nor were all on the same level of liability for this.
      This interpretation is aided by the following texts:
      أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: كان الناس أهل ردة بعد النبي صلى الله عليه وآله إلا ثلاثة. فقلت: ومن الثلاثة؟ فقال: المقداد بن الأسود، وأبو ذر الغفاري، وسلمان الفارسي، رحمة الله وبركاته عليهم، ثم عرَف أناسٌ بعدَ يسير. وقال: هؤلاء الذين دارت عليهم الرحا وأبوا أن يبايعوا، حتى جاؤوا بأمير المؤمنين مكرَهاً فبايع، وذلك قوله تعالى: وَمَا مُحَمَّدٌ إِلاَّ رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِن قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ أَفَإِن مَّاتَ أَوْ قُتِلَ انقَلَبْتُمْ عَلَى أَعْقَابِكُمْ وَمَن يَنقَلِبْ عَلَىَ عَقِبَيْهِ فَلَن يَضُرَّ اللّهَ شَيْئًا وَسَيَجْزِي اللّهُ الشَّاكِرِينَ
      (i) [al-Kafi] Abi Ja`far عليه السلام said: the people were the people of Ridda after the prophet صلى الله عليه وآله except three. I said: who are the three? He said: al-Miqdad b. al-Aswad, Abu Dhar al-Ghiffari and Salman al-Farsi, may Allah’s mercy and blessings be upon them, then the people came to know after a while [the truth], these [three] are those around whom the banner revolved and they refused to give Bay`a [to Abu Bakr], until when they brought the commander of the faithful عليه السلام by coercion and he gave the pledge of allegiance, and that is His words the Elevated - “Muhammad is not but a messenger, messengers have come and gone before him, if he dies or is killed, will you turn back on your heels, and whoever turns back on his heels then he will not harm Allah a thing and Allah will recompense those who are grateful” (3:144).
      The narration indicates that the uniqueness of the three was that they did not give the Bay`a to the usurper because of knowing the true status of Ali, it was only when Ali was forced to give the Bay`a, and he did [for the Masliha which Allah willed], that the three also agreed to do it. The meaning of 'then the people came to know after a while ...' is that some people recognized their fault, and acknowledged that the commander of the faithful was the most rightful person to assume leadership. That all the others apart from the three were paralyzed by fear is shown in the narration below:
      أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: جاء المهاجرون والأنصار وغيرهم بعد ذلك إلى علي عليه السلام فقالوا له: أنت والله أمير المؤمنين وأنت والله أحق الناس وأولاهم بالنبي عليه السلام هلم يدك نبايعك فوالله لنموتن قدامك! فقال علي عليه السلام: ان كنتم صادقين فاغدوا غدا علي محلقين فحلق علي عليه السلام وحلق سلمان وحلق مقداد وحلق أبو ذر ولم يحلق غيرهم؛ ثم انصرفوا فجاؤوا مرة أخرى بعد ذلك، فقالوا له أنت والله أمير المؤمنين وأنت أحق الناس وأولاهم بالنبي عليه السلام عليه السلام هلم يدك نبايعك فحلفوا فقال: إن كنتم صادقين فاغدوا علي محلقين فما حلق إلا هؤلاء الثلاثة قلت: فما كان فيهم عمار؟ فقال: لا؛ قلت: فعمار من أهل الردة؟ فقال: إنّ عمارا قد قاتل مع علي عليه السلام بعد ذلك
      (ii) [al-Kashshi] Abi Ja`far عليه السلام said: the Muhajirun and Ansar and others came after that [the coup at Saqifa] to Ali عليه السلام and said to him: you are by Allah the commander of the faithful, and you are by Allah the most rightful person and closest to the prophet, put forth your hand so that we can pledge allegiance to you, for by Allah we are going to die in front of you [in your defense], Ali said: if you are truthful then come to me tomorrow having shaved your head [which would visually identify the ‘rebels’ to the authorities], so Ali shaved, so did Salman, Miqdad and Abu Dhar, and no one else did, then they came a second time after the first and said: you are by Allah the most rightful person and closest to the prophet, put forth your hand so that we can pledge allegiance to you, and they swore an oath, he said: come to me tomorrow having shaved your head if you are truthful, so no one shaved except three. I said: Ammar was not among them? He said: No, I said: Ammar is from the people of Ridda? He said: Ammar fought together with Ali after that.
      This reaffirms that the uniqueness of the three is related to them not giving in and remaining with Ali to the end as far as his right is concerned. Note also how Ammar is not included among the Ahl al-Ridda, even in a historical sense, because of his later support for Ali. In fact, one of the reasons behind Ali accepting to give Bay`a after his show of dissent was so that the masses do not renounce the faith totally. Recall that the Islamic polity was still unstable and there were a lot of Arab tribes whose allegiance had been personally to the prophet and not the Diin per se, the Jahiliyya was not far from their psyche.
      أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: إن الناس لما صنعوا ما صنعوا إذ بايعوا أبا بكر لم يمنع أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام من أن يدعو إلى نفسه إلا نظرا للناس و تخوفا عليهم أن يرتدوا عن الاسلام فيعبدوا الاوثان ولا يشهدوا أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمدا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وكان الاحب إليه أن يقرهم على ما صنعوا من أن يرتدوا عن جميع الاسلام وإنما هلك الذين ركبوا ما ركبوا فأما من لم يصنع ذلك ودخل فيما دخل فيه الناس على غير علم ولا عداوة لامير المؤمنين عليه السلام فإن ذلك لا يكفره ولا يخرجه من الاسلام ولذلك كتم علي عليه السلام أمره وبايع مكرها حيث لم يجد أعوانا
      (iii) [al-Kafi] Abu Ja'farعليه السلام  said: When the people did what they did - when they gave allegiance to Abu Bakr, nothing prevented the commander of the faithful عليه السلام from calling to himself (i.e. gather support to rival them publicly) except his fear for the people - that they would apostate from Islam, and begin worshiping the idols anew, and reject witnessing that there is no God but Allah, and that Muhammad is his messenger; and it was more beloved to him to acquiesce to what they had done rather than them apostatizing from the whole of Islam. Verily, those who clambered upon this (opposing Ali for rulership) have been destroyed. As for the one who did not contribute anything to that (opposing Ali for rulership) and entered into what the people entered into without knowledge (about his status) nor enmity towards him then this act of his does not make him a disbeliever, and it does not remove him from Islam, and this is why Ali kept quiet about his matter (status), and gave allegiance while displeased, when he could not find any supporters.
      The narration makes it clear that had the Imam fought for his leadership i.e. a civil war it would cause irreparable damage, this is because of the tenuous position that Islam had, even the outward Islam (the Islam of the Shahadatyn) would have been wiped out. There were a lot of external and internal enemies waiting for this infighting to make sure that the whole foundation of Islam crumbles.  
      Conclusion
      The Umma became, for the most part, misguided after their prophet. This is something that had also happened to the communities of past prophets. But this misguidance should not be understood to have taken all of them out of Islam as a whole, rather, by ignoring a central commandment of the prophet they have done a great sin which struck a blow to the pristine Islam.
      Furthermore, the protagonists differ relative to their role in the fiasco. Some were quite unaware of the whole thing and lacked full knowledge of the Haqq of Ali and his Ma`rifa, this could be because they were blind to the order of the prophet (total ignorance); had some doubts; did not have the ability to influence the outcome because of some constraints [swept away by the wave of events]; or because they showed cowardice and faltered in coming to Ali’s aid. Others later acknowledged their mistake and made up for it in the following years. All these in their different categories can be said to be the majority. Their fate in the next world of “realities” is left to Allah
      On the other hand, there were those who administered the whole thing. They had full knowledge of what the prophet had ordered them and what the divine commandment required them to do. They also knew the position of Ali. Despite this, they fought against this explicitly. These are those who should be treated as apparent Muslims in the daily life in this world [according to most scholars]. This is, after all, how Ali himself treated them, praying in their mosques, visiting them in sickness, helping them out when they faced challenges, eating with them etc. part of which is Taqiyya and safeguarding the greater principles of Islam, but they are undoubtedly people of the fire in the next world.
      Note that this interpretation is dependent on the position of differentiating between the Dharuriyat of the Diin and that of the Madhhab and considering the Shahdatayn alone to be enough in making someone a Muslim [unless taken out for some other reason]. Whilst this is a popular position among scholars today, it has had its detractors among the scholars of the past, one of them being someone like Shaykh Yusuf al-Bahrani, who considered the rejectors of the Wilaya as Kafirs with the fullest implication this has [even in this world].  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Blog Statistics

    86
    Total Blogs
    473
    Total Entries
×
×
  • Create New...