Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
sakura1994

How should I feel about non Muslim ancestors, who were killed during Muslim conquests?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I am kind confused when I think about it , I am muslim now but I don't justify the way those people brought islam over .

like why kill and kidnap non muslim women , invading another country and taking their womens as sex slaves and humiliating them , why ?

should I forgive those people specially when they being treated as heros of islam and fatihin , and if I called them heros what does that make my non muslim ancestors !

I am sure indian , iranian , and other non arab muslims understand what I mean with my question ?

can someone enlight me on what should I do about my thinking , I feel sorry for my ancestors and can't forgive the conquerors of those times , but I still like islam as religion but I don't accept the way they spread islam . 

Edited by Haji 2003

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget the conquerors go back to the essence of Islam which is rasoolallah Muhammad (sawas) , He is the embodiment of this religion , the core of it , The mercy to all the worlds , When you go back to the root and the core you will realise that Islam is indeed the Religion of the most merciful , In regards to your question about the so called muslim conquerors they used Islam as a mask to further their political agenda and dominance , the true Islam is the islam of Muhammad (sawas) and which was passed down through his pure and pious progeny , everybody else just used this beautiful religion for their own political gains , A good example is Abu sufyan (la) who was the staunch enemy of Muhammad (sawas) , do you think he converted from his heart?  or was he trying to be sly so he could use his conversion for his personal agenda in the near future? the answer is clear if you go through Islamic history , Anyway don't be to upset about the past because the past is history , the future is a mystery and today is a gift that is why it is called the present :) , may Allah swt bless you and give you peace in your heart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this narration can help you understand how islam was spread after the righteous successors of Muhammad (sawas) lost their rights ,

Amir-ul-Mu'mineen [as] said: ‘Be aware, I will leave you shortly and go behind a ‘Curtain’. You should expect now the anarchy of Banu Ummayad, the kingdoms’ of ‘al-Kasira’ will be built, in which what Allah (azwj) Wants to be alive, will be made dead and what Allah (azwj) Wants to be demolished will be established. From now onwards, make your homes a place of worship and remain patient like eating cinders and keep on remembering Allah (azwj) as the remembrance of Allah is of significant benefit, if you have the knowledge.'

Source: Bihar ul-Anwar, Vol. 52, H 155

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sharinganMahdi said:

make your homes a place of worship 

Source: Bihar ul-Anwar, Vol. 52, H 155

I recognize this by myself as the mosques in my city are all attached to Ahl as-Sunna wal Jemaah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sakura1994 said:

I am sure indian , iranian , and other non arab muslims understand what I mean with my question ?

Those wars were done under strict rules of ethics and just pretenses.

Additionally, the verse of the Quran relating to "those who your right hands possess", does not give an excuse to rape.

Infact, Umar ibn Khattab ordered a person who raped a woman taken as prisoner of war during one of the conquests to be lashed 100 times for the crime of Zina.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sakura1994 said:

I am kind confused when I think about it , I am muslim now but I don't justify the way those people brought islam over .

like why kill and kidnap non muslim women , invading another country and taking their womens as sex slaves and humiliating them , why ?

should I forgive those people specially when they being treated as heros of islam and fatihin , and if I called them heros what does that make my non muslim ancestors !

I am sure indian , iranian , and other non arab muslims understand what I mean with my question ?

can someone enlight me on what should I do about my thinking , I feel sorry for my ancestors and can't forgive the conquerors of those times , but I still like islam as religion but I don't accept the way they spread islam . 

There were no forced conversions this is a myth spread by Islamophobes:

See my forum about this very topic: 

 

Edited by Enlightened Follower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sakura1994 said:

I am kind confused when I think about it , I am muslim now but I don't justify the way those people brought islam over .

like why kill and kidnap non muslim women , invading another country and taking their womens as sex slaves and humiliating them , why ?

should I forgive those people specially when they being treated as heros of islam and fatihin , and if I called them heros what does that make my non muslim ancestors !

I am sure indian , iranian , and other non arab muslims understand what I mean with my question ?

can someone enlight me on what should I do about my thinking , I feel sorry for my ancestors and can't forgive the conquerors of those times , but I still like islam as religion but I don't accept the way they spread islam . 

You are Egyptian right?

It took your ancestors 400 years to even form a Muslim majority in Egypt again no forced conversions, Muslims were initially minorities in the lands they conquered, they never made an effort to force their religion onto others I can provide you solid evidence of this.

Abu Bakr (the First Caliph) gave these rules to an army he was sending to battle:

 

Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path.

You must not mutilate dead bodies.

Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man.

Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful.

Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food.

You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone

Abu Bakr

These were the rules the first two caliphs abided by when conquering other lands.

Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/war.shtml

Edited by Enlightened Follower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question should be rephrased, How should I feel about non Shia ancestors , who were killed during Shia conquests in past ? I don't really care to be honest.

Iranians who were mostly Sunni back then got forcibly converted to Shia by the Safavids by the sword. Even though they had peacefully converted to Islam as a whole during the reign of the various dynasties such as the Rashidun, Umayyads and Abbasids.

ISIS destroys Shi'a mosques, tombs, holy sites, and forces the conversion of Non-Sunni the same way that the Safavids destroyed Sunni mosques, tombs and holy sites such as those of Abu Hanifa,  practiced forced conversion of Non-Shia. Both encourage extremist violence outside their borders, with ISIS encouraging lone wolf attacks and gaining the loyalty of other groups like Boko Haram and al-Shabab and the Safavid Empire causing Qizilbash uprisings in Anatolia.

Btw Ismail I favourite method of teaching a lesson to Sunnis who wouldn't denounce the Caliphs was to skin their face and body alive and leave them to die. This process took hours while the subject is in an excruciating pain until eventually they are dead. There was no doubt the Safavids were filled with hate towards the Sunnis and committed genocide in today's standards against them.

Edited by Zendegi

Share this post


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

There were no forced conversions this is a myth spread by Islamophobes:

No, even those so called sahabas practised violence towards people. Just look at Khalid Bin Walid for example.

Surely Umayyad, Abbasid and Ottoman empires were brutal tyrannies and they did atrocities in the name of Islam.

1 hour ago, Zendegi said:

Iranians who were mostly Sunni back then got forcibly converted to Shia by the Safavids by the sword. Even though they had peacefully converted to Islam as a whole during the reign of the various dynasties such as the Rashidun, Umayyads and Abbasids.

Huh? So you think that umar was peaceful during the conquest of Persia?

And they converted to sunnism peacefully under umayyads and abbasids?

Where do you get that?

Edited by celestial

Share this post


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

No, even those so called sahabas practised violence towards people. Just look at Khalid Bin Walid for example.

Surely Umayyad, Abbasid and Ottoman empires were brutal tyrannies and they did atrocities in the name of Islam.

Huh? So you think that umar was peaceful during the conquest of Persia?

And they converted to sunnism peacefully under umayyads and abbasids?

Where do you get that?

They obviously were but there were no forced conversions. Arabs and Umar were certainly barbaric in their conquests, where did I deny this? They converted to Sunni Islam gradually in a couple of centuries after the conquest, which I call peacefully converted.

 These early Islamic Empires only cared about their wealth and power.

Safavid conversions were carried out forced just like the Spanish Inquisition, where Jews and Muslims were forcibly converted to Catholicism in Spain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Enlightened Follower said:

You are Egyptian right?

It took your ancestors 400 years to even form a Muslim majority in Egypt again no forced conversions, Muslims were initially minorities in the lands they conquered, they never made an effort to force their religion onto others I can provide you solid evidence of this.

Abu Bakr (the First Caliph) gave these rules to an army he was sending to battle:

 

Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path.

You must not mutilate dead bodies.

Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man.

Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful.

Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food.

You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone

Abu Bakr

These were the rules the first two caliphs abided by when conquering other lands.

Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/war.shtml

I am Egyptian nubian , and fatimas did concur nubia and wanted to form bafer zone in it between them and the ummayad people in south , and they married from my people and because my people had traditional of whole tribe converting to same faith , all of us became muslims but that doesn't mean we were not forced or concured cuz it still same .

Share this post


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

You should not waste your time thinkng about your dead ancestors. Good or bad, they are completly irrelevent to your current life.  

I don't want to call you hypocrite but what you just say is hypocracy , when you can't even forget what happen to your ancestors and want revenge from those who killed imam ali r.a and hussien r.a , then tell other's to forgot about their ancestors , will your case arabs killing each other is also irrelevant to me who non arab .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mass forced conversion almost never happened. The only example I can think of is after the conquest of Mecca, and that was more or less because Mecca had been the epicenter of scum and with their defeat, there was not much else to do. These are people who were "in it to win it" as far as destroying Islam was concerned; accepting them into the ummah was a very merciful thing to do.

 

As for Iran, Syria, Indo-Pak, southeast Asia, and so on... these are people who gradually became Muslim over the course of centuries. Forced conversions don't take that long. Did you ever wonder why are there Muslims in China? Islamic conquests never reached there. Same with southeast Asia; almost all of those countries have very large Muslim minorities, and a few of them are Muslim majority (like Indonesia and Malaysia). So how could they have become Muslim by force? These are all things to consider. Don't get swept up into the hype.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always oppose oppressors and tyrants, no matter which religion they claim to follow. As for those who have died, know that God will judge with perfect justice.

I don't know about other sects, but shiaism doesn't allow forced conversions or conquest of peaceful lands, so anyone who claims to be Shia but does these things is deviant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On April 27, 2016 at 8:39 PM, sharinganMahdi said:

Maybe this narration can help you understand how islam was spread after the righteous successors of Muhammad (sawas) lost their rights ,

Amir-ul-Mu'mineen [as] said: ‘Be aware, I will leave you shortly and go behind a ‘Curtain’. You should expect now the anarchy of Banu Ummayad, the kingdoms’ of ‘al-Kasira’ will be built, in which what Allah (azwj) Wants to be alive, will be made dead and what Allah (azwj) Wants to be demolished will be established. From now onwards, make your homes a place of worship and remain patient like eating cinders and keep on remembering Allah (azwj) as the remembrance of Allah is of significant benefit, if you have the knowledge.'

Source: Bihar ul-Anwar, Vol. 52, H 155

Salam

Thank you for this amazing Hadith. Specially the underlined part

Edited by certainclarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2016 at 6:16 PM, celestial said:

No, even those so called sahabas practised violence towards people. Just look at Khalid Bin Walid for example.

Surely Umayyad, Abbasid and Ottoman empires were brutal tyrannies and they did atrocities in the name of Islam.

Huh? So you think that umar was peaceful during the conquest of Persia?

And they converted to sunnism peacefully under umayyads and abbasids?

Where do you get that?

From Jonathan AC Brown a qualified historian and scholar and my keen interest in studying history believe me I know my sources and history.

Edited by Enlightened Follower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, sakura1994 said:

I am Egyptian nubian , and fatimas did concur nubia and wanted to form bafer zone in it between them and the ummayad people in south , and they married from my people and because my people had traditional of whole tribe converting to same faith , all of us became muslims but that doesn't mean we were not forced or concured cuz it still same .

You were not whether you are Egyptian, Nubian, or Berber there were no forced conversions.

If you want see an instance where forced conversions actually occurred then look at the Spanish Inquisition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Zendegi said:

They obviously were but there were no forced conversions. Arabs and Umar were certainly barbaric in their conquests, where did I deny this? They converted to Sunni Islam gradually in a couple of centuries after the conquest, which I call peacefully converted.

 These early Islamic Empires only cared about their wealth and power.

Safavid conversions were carried out forced just like the Spanish Inquisition, where Jews and Muslims were forcibly converted to Catholicism in Spain.

Not quite there are no Muslims or hardly any Jews in Spain.

There are still plenty of Non-Shias in Iran even Sunni Kurds as well as Jews.

Edited by Enlightened Follower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2016 at 6:16 PM, celestial said:

No, even those so called sahabas practised violence towards people. Just look at Khalid Bin Walid for example.

Khalid Ibn Walid's conquest were a result of military tactics his army was actually much smaller than the Byzantine and Persian armies and again he abided by the rules of ethics as stated above they were not "violent" conquests, they were just conquests.

Just because you hate Umar, Abu Bakr, and Khalid Ibn Walid don't allow your bias to cloud your judgement.

Edited by Enlightened Follower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2016 at 5:27 PM, Zendegi said:

Question should be rephrased, How should I feel about non Shia ancestors , who were killed during Shia conquests in past ? I don't really care to be honest.

Iranians who were mostly Sunni back then got forcibly converted to Shia by the Safavids by the sword. Even though they had peacefully converted to Islam as a whole during the reign of the various dynasties such as the Rashidun, Umayyads and Abbasids.

ISIS destroys Shi'a mosques, tombs, holy sites, and forces the conversion of Non-Sunni the same way that the Safavids destroyed Sunni mosques, tombs and holy sites such as those of Abu Hanifa,  practiced forced conversion of Non-Shia. Both encourage extremist violence outside their borders, with ISIS encouraging lone wolf attacks and gaining the loyalty of other groups like Boko Haram and al-Shabab and the Safavid Empire causing Qizilbash uprisings in Anatolia.

Btw Ismail I favourite method of teaching a lesson to Sunnis who wouldn't denounce the Caliphs was to skin their face and body alive and leave them to die. This process took hours while the subject is in an excruciating pain until eventually they are dead. There was no doubt the Safavids were filled with hate towards the Sunnis and committed genocide in today's standards against them.

Omg we have been through this just because the Safavids and ISIS share some similarities does not mean they are the same. ISIS 100x more violent and unethical than the Safavids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Zendegi said:

Safavid conversions were carried out forced just like the Spanish Inquisition, where Jews and Muslims were forcibly converted to Catholicism in Spain.

Woah there!

Spanish Inquisition was 10000000x more violent even the descendants of Muslims and Jews had to flee Spain under threat of death.

There are still Jews and Sunnis in Iran today even if they don't form the majority.

There are no Muslims or barely any Jews in Spain.

If you remember the article I posted you will understand the Spanish Inquisition actually extended for 600 years for the descendants of Muslims and Jews in Spain.

Once someone converted under the Safavids no further efforts to pursue an agenda were ever continued, whereas, in the Inquisition they were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2016 at 5:27 PM, Zendegi said:

Btw Ismail I favourite method of teaching a lesson to Sunnis who wouldn't denounce the Caliphs was to skin their face and body alive and leave them to die. This process took hours while the subject is in an excruciating pain until eventually they are dead. There was no doubt the Safavids were filled with hate towards the Sunnis and committed genocide in today's standards against them.

Massacre? Maybe. Genocide? Never!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Enlightened Follower said:

Woah there!

Um if you are trying to distort history with your emotional bias than its not worth discussing. I was taking you seriously for some time but now I should reconsider.

Doesn't change the facts brother, even though you can be bias and emotional because we happen to be Shia. Likewise a Jew would also get bias and emotional when discussing anything about Israel, how it happened to be established (ethnically cleansed which they strongly deny!) or anything about the oppression of Palestinians. These are no doubt edgy topics which are worth discussing once in a while.

Sunnis used to be the majority in Iran but the Safavids with the help of extremists factions like the Kizilbash. Who did indeed convert the majority of the population by violent means, force and intimidation to Shia unfortunately. Even my grandfather know this. Besides this I don't completely despise Safavids, their culture, architecture and arts they brought in their rule but same could be unfortunately applied for the Nazis.

Mate something to get around your head. Safavids even though they were a Shia Empire with lot of territory and had a great respect culture and arts were never near perfect representatives of Shias, our scriptures or our Imams in anyway. Just accept that. Unlike the early conversions to Islam which you agree with were a long slow process that took centuries were relatively peaceful unlike that we have discussed, which you refuse to accept unfortunately.

Many of the Sunnis left happen to be in bordering regions, remember the geography and understand how difficult it would have been to reach those places back in those days let alone controlling them. Kurdistan with its many mountains and rough terrains and Balochistan with its rogue terrain and hot deserts. These are the places where the majority of Sunnis happen to be left in Iran.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Zendegi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Enlightened Follower said:

Omg we have been through this just because the Safavids and ISIS share some similarities does not mean they are the same. ISIS 100x more violent and unethical than the Safavids.

Did I say they are the same? No I didn't.

 I just happened to be comparing them and there are the 'odd' similarities. They were both violent and unethical in a multitude of ways, plus I am not judging which one happens to be the worst. 

Edited by Zendegi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Enlightened Follower said:

From Jonathan AC Brown a qualified historian and scholar and my keen interest in studying history believe me I know my sources and history.

I don't need any historian when i have the history books in front of me.

I won't believe that army of umar or umayyads were peaceful to people. Most of the Arabs considered themselves better than other people at that time, they looked down upon Persian people, they also did this to Turks, they made them slaves, the killer of umar, -great hero- was a persian, Piroz Nahavandi. He was a slave to mughira ibn shuba, he faced utmost injustice, he was despised, he saw how much umar and the folks around him was corrupted.

7 hours ago, Enlightened Follower said:

Yes, Iran was only 40% Muslim by the year 840.

Iraq was only 18% Muslim in the year 860.

Umar made no effort to force convert anyone!

I'll never ever believe that umar was peaceful. Curse be upon him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, celestial said:

I don't need any historian when i have the history books in front of me.

I won't believe that army of umar or umayyads were peaceful to people. Most of the Arabs considered themselves better than other people at that time, they looked down upon Persian people, they also did this to Turks, they made them slaves, the killer of umar, -great hero- was a persian, Piroz Nahavandi. He was a slave to mughira ibn shuba, he faced utmost injustice, he was despised, he saw how much umar and the folks around him was corrupted.

I'll never ever believe that umar was peaceful. Curse be upon him.

Ok then you are letting your own emotions influence you and you give Islamophobes the excuse to say "there were forced conversions", when there really were not.

Just because you had Umar don't allow that to cloud the history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, celestial said:

I won't believe that army of umar or umayyads were peaceful to people. Most of the Arabs considered themselves better than other people at that time, they looked down upon Persian people, they also did this to Turks, they made them slaves, the killer of umar, -great hero- was a persian, Piroz Nahavandi. He was a slave to mughira ibn shuba, he faced utmost injustice, he was despised, he saw how much umar and the folks around him was corrupted.

16 hours ago, Enlightened Follower said:

Yes, Iran was only 40% Muslim by the year 840.

Iraq was only 18% Muslim in the year 860.

Umar made no effort to force convert anyone!

I'll never ever believe that umar was peaceful. Curse be upon him.

Number one, the Turks joined Islam much later particularly due to the fact they were employec as mercenaries/soldiers for the Abbasid Caliphs.

Number two, there is no evidence of discrimination against Non-Arabs until the reign of the Ummayads.

The Rashidun had nothing to do with discrimination, it only came after Yazid's family(Ummayads) ascended to power.

Number three, don't believe everything some random person who has not done any research tells you especially certain secular Iranians who have an agenda against Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, celestial said:

, they made them slaves, the killer of umar, -great hero- was a persian, Piroz Nahavandi. He was a slave to mughira ibn shuba, he faced utmost injustice, he was despised, he saw how much umar and the folks around him was corrupted.

Islamic system of slavery was 1000x less harsh than other forms of slavery when people typically think of slavery they think of Roman Era slavery and that practiced in Europe which was much different.

Pirouz was taken as a carpenter to construct something for Umar, he wanted to get payed for his work Umar said to patient there is no injustice to be found here:

While he was in Medina, there was a Majuwsi (fire-worshiper) who was a slave, a man by the name of Abu Lu’ Lu’. Abu Lu’ Lu’ was an expert blacksmith, and a slave, captured during the conquest of Nahawand. He was in Medina, making things for the Muslims. His slave-master, though–a Muslim–would take a lot of his earnings.

Transcript(Abu Lu' Lu was the Arabic nickname for Pirouz):

"So knowing the reputation of ‘Umar ibn Al-Khattab (رضي الله عنه‏) for justice, he went to ‘Umar and told him: “Ask my master to reduce what he’s taking from me.”

And ‘Umar (رضي الله عنه‏) told him: “be patient.”

Now, Abu Lu’ Lu’ got mad–furious! And he went away furious.

Meanwhile, ‘Umar (رضي الله عنه‏) went to Abu Lu’ Lu’s master, and told him to reduce what he was taking from Abu Lu’ Lu’, which he agreed.

Unknown, Abu Lu’ Lu’ stewed in his rage. Being a master blacksmith, he crafted a knife–a special knife, made of two curving blades, made out of stone. He bought poison, and soaked his knife in it. He asked the person he bought the poison from, “if I cut someone with this, is there any chance they will survive?” and the person said “no.”

Now, at that time, ‘Umar (رضي الله عنه‏) would lead salaah in the masjid. And this was well-known. So one day, at Fajr, Abu Lu’ Lu’ snuck into the masjid. After salaah started, while ‘Umar was praying, he jumped out and stabbed him.

One companion narrates, that ‘Umar said: “The dog has eaten ‘Umar.”

Abu Lu’ Lu’ turned to make his escape; but the Muslims prayed so close to each other, he couldn’t escape–so he stabbed his way out. He killed several companions (almost a dozen), until one of them threw a cloth on top of him and tackled him to the floor. He then commited suicide."

 

Source: http://www.ilmfruits.com/2008/the-assassination-of-umar-ibn-al-khattab/

 

So as we can see Pirouz was hot tempered and jumped in sporadically to kill Umar for no apparent reason other than not being patient.

Edited by Enlightened Follower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
Reply to this topic...

×   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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...