Place of Jihad In Shia Doctrine

[s@jaad]

(salam)

How exactly does Jihad fit into the Shia doctrine ?

And please do not bring in recent Jihad by Hizballah .

I want to know where were Shia when Muslims were opening lands till China ? Where were Shia when Sultan Mu7ammad Al Fateh took Constantinople ? , Where were they when Sala7udin ayoubi Fought the Crusaders ? Where were they when Sultan Qutuz and Al 3iz Ibn Abdull salam Fought the mongols ? etc.

If they took part in any Jihad - please show me the info and correct me if i am wrong in thinking that they did not take part in any of the ones i mentioned or ones i did not mention.

Shukran

[s@jaad]

Anyone ?

[LoveImamAli]

May Alllah curse all the Jihadis, the oppressors who called themselves Muslims and gave a wrong image of Islam that "Islam spread through sword."

[MuslimbyChoice]

(salam)

How exactly does Jihad fit into the Shia doctrine ?

And please do not bring in recent Jihad by Hizballah .

I want to know where were Shia when Muslims were opening lands till China ? Where were Shia when Sultan Mu7ammad Al Fateh took Constantinople ? , Where were they when Sala7udin ayoubi Fought the Crusaders ? Where were they when Sultan Qutuz and Al 3iz Ibn Abdull salam Fought the mongols ? etc.

If they took part in any Jihad - please show me the info and correct me if i am wrong in thinking that they did not take part in any of the ones i mentioned or ones i did not mention.

Shukran

Shia ( just like other cults e.g Ahmadis, Sufis ) have dropped the concept of Jihad from their doctrine, that may explain why their first Imam ( Ali ) never conquered any land when he was in power unlike the three caliphs before him ..

Edited February 18, 2009 by MuslimbyChoice

[Mikayl]

Shia ( just like other cults e.g Ahmadis, Sufis ) have dropped the concept of Jihad from their doctrine, that may explain why their first Imam ( Ali ) never conquered any land when he was in power unlike the three caliphs before him ..

fateh khaiber b4 three

Edited February 18, 2009 by Mikayl

[Socrates]

Jihad is only by the order of Allah, and not by the desire of the nafs.

All the "jihad" by your caliphs, Umayyad and Abbasid, as well as the three, was solely for the desire of the nafs, collection of wealth and increasing the Empire.

Whereas when it came to real jihad, none of your guys were anywhere to be found. When the life of Muhammad was in danger, only 'Ali was there to defend him - and when Islam was under threat, only 'Ali stood like a man. That was the real jihad, and that will completed when the son of 'Ali will reappear and finish off all the fake jihadis, munafiqeen and qasireen and enemies of Allah.

[Guest]

The problem with the OP's post is that he is focusing only on the minor jihad, when the major jihad is much more important, and the Shia of the Imams (as) had to test their patience and determination throughout centuries of oppression and persecution. That is a real jihad, my friend.

Shia ( just like other cults e.g Ahmadis, Sufis ) have dropped the concept of Jihad from their doctrine, that may explain why their first Imam ( Ali ) never conquered any land when he was in power unlike the three caliphs before him ..

When did jihad = conquering lands?

[MuslimbyChoice]

Jihad is only by the order of Allah, and not by the desire of the nafs.

All the "jihad" by your caliphs, Umayyad and Abbasid, as well as the three, was solely for the desire of the nafs, collection of wealth and increasing the Empire.

are you saying Conquering Persia ( Iran today ) was for the desire of nafs and wealth of Umar !!

suppose Umar didnt send that Army while he was caliph your " , do you really think " infallible " imam ( Ali ) whom you call " Kararr " would dare to send an army to conquer persia ( which would be later the only shiiite state in the world ) .. if both of them didn't send an army Iran would still be Majoosi where people worship fire ..yeah what a lovely scene.. you prefer Iran to remain Majoosi than to become " Muslim " country .. I guess Umar takes credit for expanding the Islamic Empire..

[MuslimbyChoice]

The problem with the OP's post is that he is focusing only on the minor jihad, when the major jihad is much more important, and the Shia of the Imams (as) had to test their patience and determination throughout centuries of oppression and persecution. That is a real jihad, my friend.

So You do admit that there is Militant Jihad whom you call " Minor Jihad " and please dont talk about " Peaceful Jihad " .. Ahmadis and Sufis gave us a clear idea about the Jihad your talking about.. why dont you admit that Shia did reject Jihad just like Ahmadiyyah and end the topic ..sheesh !!

[Abdul-Rahman Brent]

So You do admit that there is Militant Jihad whom you call " Minor Jihad " and please dont talk about " Peaceful Jihad " .. Ahmadis and Sufis gave us a clear idea about the Jihad your talking about.. why dont you admit that Shia did reject Jihad just like Ahmadiyyah and end the topic ..sheesh !!

"mbc" what the heck are you talking about? We have Jihad in our Deen, Hizbullah has fought the zionist "israelis" and forced them out of most of Lebanon and gotten Lebanese prisoners freed from the zionist torture prisons. The Islamic Republic of Iran supports the Mujahideen in Iraq, Palestine (Hamas), Lebanon (Hizbullah), Afghanistan, and many other nations.

Edited February 18, 2009 by Abdul-Rahman Brent

[Guest]

So You do admit that there is Militant Jihad whom you call " Minor Jihad " and please dont talk about " Peaceful Jihad " .. Ahmadis and Sufis gave us a clear idea about the Jihad your talking about.. why dont you admit that Shia did reject Jihad just like Ahmadiyyah and end the topic ..sheesh !!

Scholars spend decades of their lives writing about this topic, and you seriously cheapen religion like this?

Such a bully....

[MuslimbyChoice]

Scholars spend decades of their lives writing about this topic, and you seriously cheapen religion like this?

Such a bully....

yeah they have spent decades explaining how the shiite sect is a peaceful sect, for political reasons ( pleasing the invaders ) we saw it in iraq, but hey your not alone the Ahmadi Scholars wrote thousands of books to prove that their Sect is the most peaceful sect..

No wonder why see today articles written by western orientalists about Shia islam and how its going to be the future islam instead of the aggressive sunni sect !!

Wait I saw this scenario before..where? right in india when the British supported the Ahmadi movement simply because they dropped the concept of Jihad ..and focused on what they call " Peaceful jihad !! I believe History repeats itself :!!!:

Edited February 18, 2009 by MuslimbyChoice

[Yahya2004]

on the Contrary you should thank our greatest Jihadist of all ( Umar ) without him your Rafidi Majoosi State would never exist !! did you get the hint ..

No Umar.. No Iran .. :!!!:

Yeah and?

Just because I like al-Quds Mosque doesn't mean I support the dynasty that built it.

This is called fallacious reasoning, do you deny that it is Allah that guides who he wishes?

Or have you raised the son of Umar ibn al-Khattab to deity? Secondly, I warn you don't call us Majoosi again, for your own sake in the akhira.

[Abdul-Rahman Brent]

yeah they have spent decades explaining how the shiite sect is a peaceful sect, for political reasons ( pleasing the invaders ) we saw it in iraq, but hey your not alone the Ahmadi Scholars wrote thousands of books to prove that their Sect is the most peaceful sect..

No wonder why see today articles written by western orientalists about Shia islam and how its going to be the future islam instead of the aggressive sunni sect !!

Wait I saw this scenario before..where? right in india when the British supported the Ahmadi movement simply because they dropped the concept of Jihad ..and focused on what they call " Peaceful jihad !! I believe History repeats itself :!!!:

What the heck are you talking about "mbc" your really spouting garbage here (as usual for you). Jihad is a part of Shi'a Islam, that is Jihad against oppressors unlike al-Qaeda (cia agents) which basically just attacks Muslim civilians and other civilians. Hizbullah fought Jihad against zionist "israeli" occupiers, drove them out of most of Lebanon with it and got back Lebanese captives; and defeated the zionist army.

As for Iraq, I suggest you simply read about the Jaish al-Mahdi (Mahdi Army) that fought many battles against the american military occupation many times; including the battle in 2004 in which the Mahdi Army fought and killed many american occupation soldiers and held strong for a long while.

Also even today Shi'a Muslim Mujahideen groups like Iraqi Hizbullah (Kataib Hizbullah) and Ansar al-Haqq continue to fight american occupation forces in Iraq. As for the situation in the government, our leaders are smart and are not going to give the american occupation any excuse to turn and try to put baathist forces back in power (that is the parties from the minority sunni areas). The Iraqi government has control of their own territory, and has obtained a guarantee that american forces will leave the country by 2011. The american occupation is training the Iraqi police and security forces, and this is at the request of the sovereign Iraqi government.

Jihad is a part of our Deen and we carry it out.

[Abu Nur]

As for Iraq, I suggest you simply read about the Jaish al-Mahdi (Mahdi Army) that fought many battles against the american military occupation many times; including the battle in 2004 in which the Mahdi Army fought and killed many american occupation soldiers and held strong for a long while.

(salam)

Yep, they kill also Iraqis civilians.

[Abdul-Rahman Brent]

on the Contrary you should thank our greatest Jihadist of all ( Umar ) without him your Rafidi Majoosi State would never exist !! did you get the hint ..

No Umar.. No Iran .. :!!!:

Zoroastrians are Monotheists and Ahlul-Kitab (just like Jews and Christians) see Holy Qur'an Surah 2:62 on Sabians (who are part of Zoroastrianism). Also we don't thank umar because he simply invaded lands to steal wealth and take over land. The taking of al-Quds doesn't excuse umar's crimes, such as banning non-Arab Muslims from Madinah and stealing peoples property.

Also it was not because of umar's conquest that Iran became Muslim. Iran remained a majority Zoroastrian Ahlul-Kitab people for centuries after the time of umar. Then Sunnis became the majority in Iran, with a strong Shi'a Muslim majority in scholarly towns like Qom, Mashad, and Rayy (near modern day Tehran), etc. The Safavids then made Twelver Shi'a Islam the state religion of Iran and the people slowly reverted for many reasons, among them seeing the truth and some probably to be in opposition to the sunni Ottoman empire that was Iran's main enemy.

[MuslimbyChoice]

^ u r right, Umars brutality, racism and other unhumane practices really made them think that surely this cant b the beautiful deen they talk about.

if his " brutality " helped expanding the Muslim Empire throughout Egypt, Syria and into the Persian empire, then why not, may Allah bless for what he did on the other hands the cowardness of the first Imam didnt help in expanding the muslim empire ..how do you explain that

[UndercoverBrother]

Salaam

First of all whenever you see a dodgy article on the website which seems to be aborogating the fardh of Jihad why is it that it always seems to be a Sunni mufti or scholar who's name is stamped at the bottom. let me list the Furu'o e deen of the shia madhab and compare it with the 5 pillars of sunni madhab:

Salah

Zakah

Saum

Hajj

Khums

Jihad

Amir bil maroof

Wa nahi anil munkar

Tawalla

Tabbaraa

as opposed to

Shahadah

Salah

Zakah

Saum

Hajj

Jihad has many meanings linguistically like 'struggle' but the sharia definition of the word is to fight in the way of Allah S.W.T in a military sense. The Imams (as) were involved in many jihads I mean Mola Ali (as) is the best of the best when it comes to fighting and every mujahid in the world must keep the fighting spirit of Ali (as) close to his heart. During the muslim conquest of Persia the imams Hasan and Hussain (as) took part but after that whilst Islam had become corrupt the master of all martyrs took up arms against the tyrant and did it to protect the Tawhid and Adl of Allah S.W.T which is what every shia is told to do which is to do Jihad if thats the only way in order to correct corrupt rulers. Look at Mukhtar the avengar of kerbola and look at imam Zaid who also held a rebellion against the Bani Umaayds.

As it goes for startting conquests the shias never started any because they were never in politicol control up untill the savafids came into power (if you could call them shia) but even during the conquests of the ummayds and abbasids shias did take part because shias were scattered across the ummah and in recent history when the iSLAMIC empire collapsed the former safavid lead areas uprooted and forced out the occupation.

Anyway you claim that us shias abondened the concept of Jihad but I answered you without looking at todays reality but now i challenge you, RASULLALLAH (SAW) said DO NOT STOP THE ARMY OF OSAMA and who where the ones who called it back???

[Aabiss_Shakari]

Sunnis have given barbaric and indiscriminate killing the name of Jihad. We are seeing the fruits of Sunni Jehad in the world that they have given such a bad image to Islam and muslims. Still they claim that they are doing Jehad. Such a foolish approach.

[Aabiss_Shakari]

From Nahjul Balagha:-

Jihad is divided into four branches:

1. to persuade people to be obedient to Allah;

2. to prohibit them from sin and vice;

3. to struggle (in the cause of Allah) sincerely and firmly on all occasions and

4. to detest the vicious.

Whoever persuades people to obey the orders of Allah provides strength to the believers; whoever dissuades them from vices and sins humiliates the unbelievers; whoever struggles on all occasions discharges all his obligations and whoever detests the vicious only for the sake of Allah, then Allah will take revenge on his enemies and will be pleased with Him on the Day of Judgment.

http://www.al-islam.org/masoom/sayings/saying5.html

[BintAlHoda]

Where was the rest of the Muslim world when that stuff was happening?

I have a feeling you are writing under some delusion that there was one Islamic caliphate that was ruling the Muslim world for all those centuries, and the Muslims fought on its behalf for the sake of Islam.

For over a thousand world, the Islamic world has been divided into warring nation states and monarchies which supported their own self interest and the interests of their ruling powers not the interest of Islam. Look at how some of the (non Shia) cailphates discouraged people from converting so that they could still collect their jizya. Do you still call it 'Jihad fi sabil Allah' then?

If you want to know where the Shia were - well, probably they were in the Fatimid Dynasty in North Africa doing their fighting there. As well as in some other places.

That's just if you want a literal answer though.

Regarding the Mongol invasion, it is a fallacy that the Shia somehow played dead. There were some Sunnis and some Shia that fought it as it encroached. And there were some Sunnis and some Shia that surrendered. Read some detailed history books and please stop posting generaliztions here.

It is not jihad to conquer a new land for tax revenue.

Jihad in the Shia Ithna Ashari belief is fighting in a just war (for the oppressed, for defense, etc) or in a war led by the Prophet or Imams since they are divinely guided and did not have self interested wars.

Finally, I have to ask... why do you care? This was all quite a long time ago.

(salam)

How exactly does Jihad fit into the Shia doctrine ?

And please do not bring in recent Jihad by Hizballah .

I want to know where were Shia when Muslims were opening lands till China ? Where were Shia when Sultan Mu7ammad Al Fateh took Constantinople ? , Where were they when Sala7udin ayoubi Fought the Crusaders ? Where were they when Sultan Qutuz and Al 3iz Ibn Abdull salam Fought the mongols ? etc.

If they took part in any Jihad - please show me the info and correct me if i am wrong in thinking that they did not take part in any of the ones i mentioned or ones i did not mention.

Shukran

[Abdul-Rahman Brent]

(salam)

Yep, they kill also Iraqis civilians.

There were some rogue elements claiming to be under the umbrella of the Jaish al-Mahdi, but they were just criminals, as was admitted by Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr(ha) himself when he was correcting this problem. That is why Sayyed Muqtada(ha) suspended Jaish al-Mahdi (for a time in the past) while they cleaned out criminal elements that had worked their way in and were claiming membership in Jaish al-Mahdi as the Jaish al-Mahdi got larger and larger.

Edited February 18, 2009 by Abdul-Rahman Brent

[Abdul-Rahman Brent]

if his " brutality " helped expanding the Muslim Empire throughout Egypt, Syria and into the Persian empire, then why not, may Allah bless for what he did on the other hands the cowardness of the first Imam didnt help in expanding the muslim empire ..how do you explain that

There is a difference between spreading Islam by showing the goodness and values of Islamic monotheism, and then there is just conquering land to rule over an empire and take booty and property from people living in those lands (i.e. this is not even interested in spreading Islam, only gaining property and making an empire!). Umar did the 2nd, he didn't care much about spreading Islam, he wanted to rule lands that is why very few people actually converted to Islam in umar's time or immediately after it. There are even documented cases, especially in muawiyah(la)'s "rule" when he (muawiyah(la) that is) encouraged people NOT to convert to Islam saying he would charge them higher taxes if they left Christianity or Judaism and adopted Islam.

Imam Ali(as) spread Islam by his piety and holiness, and his piety and great representation of the religion of Islam still bring people to true Islam today, case in point myself, Alhamdulillah!

Edited February 18, 2009 by Abdul-Rahman Brent

[Rubaiyat]

The Caliphates that conquered by Sunni control were largely for personal gain from a historic point of view. Also this caliphate (Such as Omar's caliphate) refused the name Islamic Empire But it was called Arab Empire.

Later on the Ummayad and Abbasid caliphate similarly called themselves Arab. This is because it was more Arabic than Islamic and many caliphs were ruthless to their citizens as we know, many of them used to drink alcohol and some of them ended up intentionally murdering the Prophet Mohammad's family in order to repel any form of public disorder caused by them as we know. This was especially the case during the Abbasid dynasty. Also, If we take the Caliphate of Othman, he gave his family member palaces and lived in a palace himself leaving the people hungry until he was killed by his subjects.

If our friends here think that Omar brought Islam to Iran, think again. Persians could not become Muslim because of Omar since Omar thought Islam was a religion for the Arabs, not for the non-Arabs. Omar also refused to distribute the Bayt ol Mal (Islamic central bank) fairly to the non-Arabs when he was caliph. This in the long term also made way for the Shoobiyeh movement, which was a human rights movement, but because Sunni's were Arabs and incredibly racist, this human rights movement became racist in return and became totally disenchanted with gaining any favour or equal rights from the Sunni Arabs. Persians eventually became Muslim (Sunnite, Shaf'i) 400 years after Omar invaded. Omar's slave was a persian and eventually killed Omar because in his own words he was treated unjustly.

For these reasons, Shiites rarely fought under the banner of Sunnism because it was an Arab flag and fundementally racist towards the non-Arab. Caliphates were neither fair to Shiites, nor to any non-Arabs unless they behave, spoke and fought for the Arabs. Very logical for any historian or critic.

We should not stay in the past, all of these names are from up to 1000 years ago. Today we are living in another world, Sunni's who abide by totalitarian regimes and mentalities, massive underdevelopment, low educational levels, no equal education, cultural lag, in some countries even still perform things like female circumcision, honour killings, women who cannot drive, misyar. This kind of selfish thread and mentality of posters is 1000 years old and want to take us back to our common ancestors rather than reform Sunnism today for the modern world.

Edited February 19, 2009 by Rubaiyat

[Qa'im]

(salam)

I think there is far too much name-calling fitnah going on in this thread, and I believe it needs to be moderated or closed.

[Abdul-Rahman Brent]

(salam)

How exactly does Jihad fit into the Shia doctrine ?

And please do not bring in recent Jihad by Hizballah .

I want to know where were Shia when Muslims were opening lands till China ? Where were Shia when Sultan Mu7ammad Al Fateh took Constantinople ? , Where were they when Sala7udin ayoubi Fought the Crusaders ? Where were they when Sultan Qutuz and Al 3iz Ibn Abdull salam Fought the mongols ? etc.

If they took part in any Jihad - please show me the info and correct me if i am wrong in thinking that they did not take part in any of the ones i mentioned or ones i did not mention.

Shukran

As for your claims. Your "were Shia when Muslims were opening lands till China", you mean Umar and your pan-Arabist "Sunni Caliphate" crew that were only interested in conquering land for worldly empire purpose (that is for ruling over subjects; taxing them, and taking booty/property from them).

Sultan Mehmed I (aka Mehmed the Conquerer) of the Ottomans conquered Constantinople for worldly reasons of expanding Ottoman territorial gains into Europe; this had nothing to do with Islam it was worldy power and empire by your "Mehmed al-Fateh". It is only your Sunni propaganda hadith books (like Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim) that claim that allegedly just invading and conquering places is somehow by itself something meritous in Islam. Islam is about belief and Taqwa (Piety), not simply conquering lands and making worldly empires: heck pagans like the Hindu Indians, Chinese atheists, etc. made plenty of large powerful empires are they good according to you?! Mehmed I and his Ottoman empire only cared about getting wealth and more land to rule over; this is not something Islamically valued.

Saladin was a tyrant that killed many innocent Ismaili Shi'a Muslims in the powerful, respectful Ismaili Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt. Is it any suprise that after Saladin slaughtered the people of Egypt and overthrow the Fatimid Caliphate that the Shi'a Muslims didn't want to help a criminal like him (Saladin). Also Saladin was another Sunni ruler more interested in worldly power and empire then anything Islamically related. Just read about his "Ayyubid dynasty".

As for the Mongols many Shi'a Muslims fought them, but there was no stopping there main march until they were finally stopped in Aleppo, Syria I believe. Note that Aleppo, Syria is famous for having a Shi'a Muslim population in the past, and even having been a Shi'a Muslim state or emirate. Such as the Aleppo based Hamdanid dynasty and the later Miradsids (aka Mirdasid dynasty).

Shi'a Muslims fought for justice against oppressors, but we didn't support your pan-Arabist "Sunni caliphates" that were only interested in creating deviant, often times sinful worldly empires interested only in taxing subjects, conquering more land, and make more and more money (even if that was just from booty taken from innocents that had not attacked Muslims first).

Edited February 19, 2009 by Abdul-Rahman Brent

[s@jaad]

Shia ( just like other cults e.g Ahmadis, Sufis ) have dropped the concept of Jihad from their doctrine, that may explain why their first Imam ( Ali ) never conquered any land when he was in power unlike the three caliphs before him ..

What are you talking about ?

Sufis ? Sala7ud din Al Ayoubi was a Sufi with Imam Ghazali r.a. and Ahmadi Qadyanis are not Muslims even Shia scholars agree to that ?

Jihad is the backbone of Islam - the Prophet PBUH send out the armies , Imam Ali a.s. couldnt cause there was too much political turmoil and the Ummah was torn .

Jihad is only by the order of Allah, and not by the desire of the nafs.

All the "jihad" by your caliphs, Umayyad and Abbasid, as well as the three, was solely for the desire of the nafs, collection of wealth and increasing the Empire.

Whereas when it came to real jihad, none of your guys were anywhere to be found. When the life of Muhammad was in danger, only 'Ali was there to defend him - and when Islam was under threat, only 'Ali stood like a man. That was the real jihad, and that will completed when the son of 'Ali will reappear and finish off all the fake jihadis, munafiqeen and qasireen and enemies of Allah.

I gave you specific ones why didnt you answer me , When it came to defending the Ummah where were u ?

"mbc" what the heck are you talking about? We have Jihad in our Deen, Hizbullah has fought the zionist "israelis" and forced them out of most of Lebanon and gotten Lebanese prisoners freed from the zionist torture prisons. The Islamic Republic of Iran supports the Mujahideen in Iraq, Palestine (Hamas), Lebanon (Hizbullah), Afghanistan, and many other nations.

I started out my thread by saying please dont bring in Hizballah scapegoat .

I asked you to show me where you as Shia were with the Crusades , with the opening of Constantinople , when muslims stood against the Mongols ?

where were Shia ?

[Abdul-Rahman Brent]

I gave you specific ones why didnt you answer me , When it came to defending the Ummah where were u ?

Your really blabbering nonsense friend. We Shi'a Muslims defend our Ummah against oppressors, just like Imam Ali(as) did when he fought the khawarij infidels and rebels. Or like the Islamic Republic of Iran and Hizbullah do today. As for the "examples" you bring they are all not Islamic Jihad actions, they were the actions of worldly leaders wanting to conquer land, tax new subjects, and take booty (property), this is not Islamic. Islam calls for Jihad only to defend yourself against those who had oppressed you and want war with you; and reject any peace deal.

For example many of your early "Sunni Caliphate" leaders like Umar, sent their armies into foreign lands and conquered them. But once they were conquered no preaching of Islam occurred! The soldiers simply stayed in garrison cities (like military forts) and never left them to talk or try to spread Islam to the non-Muslim people who had been conquered. All your "caliph" Umar cared about was collecting taxes from these new subjects and taking booty from the conquest, not spread Islam!

Edited February 19, 2009 by Abdul-Rahman Brent

[s@jaad]

Sunnis have given barbaric and indiscriminate killing the name of Jihad. We are seeing the fruits of Sunni Jehad in the world that they have given such a bad image to Islam and muslims. Still they claim that they are doing Jehad. Such a foolish approach.

All I see is Shia having no answers to where they were while the Ummah was being attacked bu its enemies .

So one can deduce and say if it wasnt for Allah SWT guidance to Sunnis to fight the enemies of Islam - Shia would either be wearing crosses or Would look Mongolian :D LOL .

Your really blabbering nonsense friend. We Shi'a Muslims defend our Ummah against oppressors, just like Imam Ali(as) did when he fought the khawarij infidels and rebels. Or like the Islamic Republic of Iran and Hizbullah do today. As for the "examples" you bring they are all not Islamic Jihad actions, they were the actions of worldly leaders wanting to conquer land, tax new subjects, and take booty (property), this is not Islamic. Islam calls for Jihad only to defend yourself against those who had oppressed you and want war with you; and reject any peace deal.

For example many of your early "Sunni Caliphate" leaders like Umar, sent their armies into foreign lands and conquered them. But once they were conquered no preaching of Islam occurred! The soldiers simply stayed in garrison cities (like military forts) and never left them to talk or try to spread Islam to the non-Muslim people who had been conquered. All your "caliph" Umar cared about was collecting taxes from these new subjects and taking booty from the conquest, not spread Islam!

Answer what I asked

I asked you to show me where you as Shia were with the Crusades , with the opening of Constantinople , when muslims stood against the Mongols ?

If you cant it will reflect negative on u not me.

Edited February 19, 2009 by s@jaad

[Awaiting_for_the12th]

What are you talking about ?

Sufis ? Sala7ud din Al Ayoubi was a Sufi with Imam Ghazali r.a. and Ahmadi Qadyanis are not Muslims even Shia scholars agree to that ?

Jihad is the backbone of Islam - the Prophet PBUH send out the armies , Imam Ali a.s. couldnt cause there was too much political turmoil and the Ummah was torn .

I gave you specific ones why didnt you answer me , When it came to defending the Ummah where were u ?

I started out my thread by saying please dont bring in Hizballah scapegoat .

I asked you to show me where you as Shia were with the Crusades , with the opening of Constantinople , when muslims stood against the Mongols ?

where were Shia ?

i am sorry bro i dont have much knowledge about this but can you tell me was all that really important for Islam... were we defending ourselves and were we attacked first?? were there any tyrants that were oppressing the innocents??

and can i ask you where were sunnis when innocents in Palestine were being slaughtered?? it took sunni world a lil while to react ... bro think about whats happening in present ..your SUNNI brothers are dying in palestine and you are sitting here talking about Mongols????? pretty pathetic

[s@jaad]

i am sorry bro i dont have much knowledge about this but can you tell me was all that really important for Islam... were we defending ourselves and were we attacked first?? were there any tyrants that were oppressing the innocents??

and can i ask you where were sunnis when innocents in Palestine were being slaughtered?? it took sunni world a lil while to react ... bro think about whats happening in present ..your SUNNI brothers are dying in palestine and you are sitting here talking about Mongols????? pretty pathetic

Answer the question - if you cant please dont disrupt my thread with off topic discussions .

if it wasnt for Allah SWT guidance to Sunnis to fight the enemies of Islam - Shia would either be wearing crosses or Would look Mongolian

Edited February 19, 2009 by s@jaad

[s@jaad]

You filthy mushrik kafir, you think you know better than Imam Ali ? Did it not occur to you that Imam Ali knew that the 'islamic empire' that you jizz over, was a disgusting, worthless, materialistic empire.

And he wasn't a coward when he was killing you forefathers at Badr. He slaughtered your entire miserable clan, filthy pagan

Come where are you? London? PM me we can meet and I can end your miserable infidelic existence on this planet.

Dirty nasibi dog.

Is this the Ahlaaq of Ahlulbayt a.s. ?

I dont think so Bro - i didnt mean this to happen when i started the thread .

Is it not like this

Abu lulu (ra) = no Umar your greatest Jihadist. :squeez:

Abu Lulu In my Book = Yazeed Bin Mu3awiyah .

[Abdul-Rahman Brent]

I asked you to show me where you as Shia were with the Crusades , with the opening of Constantinople , when muslims stood against the Mongols ?

If you cant it will reflect negative on u not me.

Who fought the "Crusades" it was basically just a war between the Europeans and some Sunni states in the Syria/Palestine region. How many Shi'a Muslims lived in this region? Not many is the answer, the only sizeable force was the Ismailis Shi'a Muslims of Egypt who rightly had no interested in assisting a criminal like Saladin; who had butchered the Ismaili Shi'a Muslims of the Fatimid Caliphate and stolen al-Azhar Masjid in Cairo which was built as a Shi'a Muslim school; Ismaili Shi'a Muslims built the city of Cairo, Egypt itself also. The Ismailis of the Fatimids stood against both the European Crusaders who were attacking them and the Sunni oppressors, pan-Arabists, and thugs like Saladin who were killing them simply for being Shi'a Muslims. So why would you expect to see Shi'a Muslims fighting in a war in this Syria/Palestine region when it basically just involved European Christian crusader invaders who wanted to take Jerusalem and certain Arab Sunni states and dynasties in the region like Saladin and his early teacher Nur ad-Din who were fighting them for which empire would control that region?!

On Constantinople how is this relevant?! How many of the Ottoman officers were Shi'a Muslims, likely none, so of course any Ottoman conquest would only include Sunnis as that was who made up the government and military of that "Sunni" Ottoman empire. Yet this conquest is not an Islamic merit for anyone, Sultan Mehmed I only conquered the city for worldly purposes, these were to extend his empires reach into Europe, gain more subjects, and make more money (in taxes and booty).

As for the Mongols many Shi'a Muslims fought them, I again showed you how the Mongols were stopped in Aleppo which has a historical Shi'a Muslim presence (see the Shi'a Muslim Hamdanid and Mirdasid dynasties that once ruled in Aleppo, Syria). Also the case of the Mongols is a very complex and interesting case. It is known that many of the Mongols began reverting to Islam at different times in the "Mongol conquests"; the Mongols contact with Muslim peoples led many to study and accept Islam. Of course this doesn't excuse crimes the Mongols did against civilians but it shows the situation was complex to say the least.

I recommend this article refuting nasibi wahhabi "Sunni" claims about a specific point of argument on the Mongol invasion:

http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/tusi/baghdad.htm

Edited February 19, 2009 by Abdul-Rahman Brent

[s@jaad]

Who fought the "Crusades" it was basically just a war between the Europeans and some Sunni states in the Syria/Palestine region. How many Shi'a Muslims lived in this region? Not many is the answer, the only sizeable force was the Ismailis Shi'a Muslims of Egypt who rightly had no interested in assisting a criminal like Saladin; who had butchered the Ismaili Shi'a Muslims of the Fatimid Caliphate and stolen al-Azhar Masjid in Cairo which was built as a Shi'a Muslim school; Ismaili Shi'a Muslims built the city of Cairo, Egypt itself also. The Ismailis of the Fatimids stood against both the European Crusaders who were attacking them and the Sunni oppressors, pan-Arabists, and thugs like Saladin who were killing them simply for being Shi'a Muslims. So why would you expect to see Shi'a Muslims fighting in a war in this Syria/Palestine region when it basically just involved European Christian crusader invaders who wanted to take Jerusalem and certain Arab Sunni states and dynasties in the region like Saladin and his early teacher Nur ad-Din who were fighting them for which empire would control that region?!

On Constantinople how is this relevant?! How many of the Ottoman officers were Shi'a Muslims, likely none, so of course any Ottoman conquest would only include Sunnis as that was who made up the government and military of that "Sunni" Ottoman empire. Yet this conquest is not an Islamic merit for anyone, Sultan Mehmed I only conquered the city for worldly purposes, these were to extend his empires reach into Europe, gain more subjects, and make more money (in taxes and booty).

As for the Mongols many Shi'a Muslims fought them, I again showed you how the Mongols were stopped in Aleppo which has a historical Shi'a Muslim presence (see the Shi'a Muslim Hamdanid and Mirdasid dynasties that once ruled in Aleppo, Syria). Also the case of the Mongols is a very complex and interesting case. It is known that many of the Mongols began reverting to Islam at different times in the "Mongol conquests"; the Mongols contact with Muslim peoples led many to study and accept Islam. Of course this doesn't excuse crimes the Mongols did against civilians but it shows the situation was complex to say the least.

I recommend this article refuting nasibi wahhabi "Sunni" claims about a specific point of argument on the Mongol invasion:

http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/tusi/baghdad.htm

So u using geography as a scapegoat this time - But its obvious you guys hate Sultan Salahud Din Ayoubi the Great Sufi Mujahid of All time and the one who saved the Ummah through Allah SWT permission many times never mind who likes it or not :)

as for Constantinople - Go back to what is said about the Prophet Going to Tabuk .

The mongols were not stopped by Shia all history books and Muslim Sufis - Sunnis record it as Ain Jaaloot - Sultan Qutuz with the Help of Sufi Saint Al 3iz Ibn Abdulsalam r.a. .

Edited February 19, 2009 by s@jaad

[dasayy]

Shia ( just like other cults e.g Ahmadis, Sufis ) have dropped the concept of Jihad from their doctrine, that may explain why their first Imam ( Ali ) never conquered any land when he was in power unlike the three caliphs before him ..

Khalif Ali (ra) and Shia'sm have nothing to do with each other