Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I hear a lot of shias saying that Sunni Scholars were very violent people and were sinilar to terrorists. However once I looked up the shia perspective on Jihad its very violent as well.

Al Allamah Al Hilli states: It is compulsory to wage Jihad on the jews and christians until the pay Jizya or convert or die, and compulsory on the rest to convert ot die. This is with the presence of the Imam. (Tadhkirat Al Fuqaha vol.9 pg.15)

Now some people whom I have spoken to have stated that fighting non-muslims is only after the call to islam, which proves the truth of islam.

While all shia scholars believe that the call to islam is co pulsory before fighting, only a few believe its in the form of destroying misconceptions of islam and proving islam to non-muslims.

In fact in Riyadh Al-Masail it just states that the call to islam is only when you say: I call you to Allah and his religion...etc...

And the shia scholars never say that the Imam is prohibited from waging war on innocent people. In fact they say it is wajib for him to wage war each year! They beleive the Mahdi is a terrorist!

So shias should say: We condemn ISIS and the ancient Shia Scholars for terrorism!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

even sufis who like the most peaceful kind muslims have jihad as well , jihad is for self defense .. and in war their is no such thing as being too voleint , you are fighting someone who want to kill you , rape your women , steal your land . 

off course you gonna show no mercy , but unlike other religions , Islam have many set of rules known as ethical of war in islam .

Share this post


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

even sufis who like the most peaceful kind muslims have jihad as well , jihad is for self defense .. and in war their is no such thing as being too voleint , you are fighting someone who want to kill you , rape your women , steal your land . 

off course you gonna show no mercy , but unlike other religions , Islam have many set of rules known as ethical of war in islam .

What are you talking about?? Of course Christians also have rules regarding engagement with the enemy in war. Please get your facts straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most authoritative and up-to-date expression of just war doctrine is found in paragraph 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It says:

The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

there must be serious prospects of success;

the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

 

The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties (CCC 2312).


 

Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely. Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide (CCC 2313).


 

Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation. A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons -- especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons -- to commit such crimes (CCC 2314).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, ChristianVisitor said:

What are you talking about?? Of course Christians also have rules regarding engagement with the enemy in war. Please get your facts straight.

raping defenseless women and shooting children is your ethical of war , stealing monuments and history of other countries , nuking cities that packed with normal civilians , crusades , the torture of Andalusian , and off course the genocide of natives in alot of places , you are more like isis of the time during your middle age .

do I need to mention KKK and enslavery of other races and promoting white supremacy , that's all was done by your catholic church , and before all that did you know how romans spread Christianity/Catholicism in europe and other parts in middle east , romans killed many in name of jesus and fought their holy wars .

and you have many verses in bible that tell you that you can deceive enemy after they surrender  , enslave , kill , rape , genocide , all those who not from your nation and you fighting them .

 

christans specially catholic christans are last one to talk about ethical of wars , you even attacked follow christans Protestant , orthodox and wanted to force convert them .

catholic is false church , the one only church that close to what jesus was is the Arius followers who didn't accept trinity and fought against it , but unfortunately they almost not exist anymore because roman catholic pagens used to kill and hunt them .

 

Share this post


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

Allamah Al Hilli states: It is compulsory to wage Jihad on the jews and christians until the pay Jizya or convert or die, and compulsory on the rest to convert ot die. This is with the presence of the Imam. (Tadhkirat Al Fuqaha vol.9 pg.15)

The famous view is that offensive Jihad is under the control of the infallible Imam, and we believe the Imam will come and conquer the Earth. Even Christians and Jews believe Jesus (Or the Messiah) will judge the world violently. 

And this is the difference between us, it is that the most famous opinion in our sect says that this type of Jihad can only be under the banner of an infallible Imam. Yes a minority of scholars disagreed (I can only think of al-Khoei) - but the likeliness of such a Jihad being issued is incredibly low, so for the mean time it seems that we are waiting for the Hidden Imam to rise against the forces of Evil.

Edited by The Batman

Share this post


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

 .

do I need to mention KKK and enslavery of other races and promoting white supremacy , that's all was done by your catholic church , and before all that did you know how romans spread Christianity/Catholicism in europe and other parts in middle east , romans killed many in name of jesus and fought their holy wars .

and you have many verses in bible that tell you that you can deceive enemy after they surrender  , enslave , kill , rape , genocide , all those who not from your nation and you fighting them .

 

christans specially catholic christans are last one to talk about ethical of wars , you even attacked follow christans Protestant , orthodox and wanted to force convert them .

 

 

Well, your statement was that there were no rules in Christianity to warfare. There are and I listed some for the Catholic Church but ,as with any group, the issue is how well they are followed. My guess is you will find in any faith incidences in which the adherents did not follow the rules. My own Church is a good example of folks not following rules.

speaking as a "Roman Catholic pagan "whose family was genocided against, I'd just like to point out that:

I think Christian Visitor is a Protestant,so I don't think we can blame anything Catholics did on him 

The KKK doesn't like Catholics

Protestants also sometimes killed Catholics

The  Catholic Church is historically far less " white" than most Protestant churches,so white supremacy as espoused by the KKK is usually voiced people who are nominally Protestant or were Protestant ,even if their church does not agree with them

What Bible verses allowing genocide,etc. are you referring to?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, The Batman said:

The famous view is that offensive Jihad is under the control of the infallible Imam, and we believe the Imam will come and conquer the Earth. Even Christians and Jews believe Jesus (Or the Messiah) will judge the world violently. 

And this is the difference between us, it is that the most famous opinion in our sect says that this type of Jihad can only be under the banner of an infallible Imam. Yes a minority of scholars disagreed (I can only think of al-Khoei) - but the likeliness of such a Jihad being issued is incredibly low, so for the mean time it seems that we are waiting for the Hidden Imam to rise against the forces of Evil.

Jihad is primarily defensive in Islam and even during the re-appearance of the Hidden Imam, the focus will be on fighting evil and not necessarily gaining land.

Shia islam has pretty strict rules of engagement including details about not hurting not just people but lands as well. A great example was the letter from Sistani to those fighting ISIS:

Advice and Guidance to the Fighters on the Battlefields

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Jihad is primarily defensive in Islam and even during the re-appearance of the Hidden Imam, the focus will be on fighting evil and not necessarily gaining land.

Shia islam has pretty strict rules of engagement including details about not hurting not just people but lands as well. A great example was the letter from Sistani to those fighting ISIS:

Advice and Guidance to the Fighters on the Battlefields

I will PM you some stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam Alaikom

According to the viewpoint of shia scholars, we have some kinds of war (Jihad) in Islam: Initial war (jihad Ebtedaee), defensive war and etc.

Most of the ancient and earlier scholars say: Initial war is obligatory for infallible Imams and they have to do it once a year at least.

They believe that this kind of war against infidels, is one of the duties of infallible Imams, but in the age of major occultation, this is not obligatory for scholars (Alrozat albahia, Shahid thani, book of Jihad).

But there are some criticisms:

1.     Most of the recent scholars reject such kind of war and they do not believe in it.

2.     If we accept that, but the question is: why the Prophet Muhammad and Infallible Imams (pbut) did not do it during their life, specially The Prophet and Imam Ali, because they were ruler in their time.

3.     Moreover, some nowadays scholars believe that some of the rulings of Islam belong to a specific time of the Imams.

 

 

 

Someone said that Imam Mahdi will conquer the world after his appearance (Zohur). This is not a true believe about Imam Mahdi, because it means that he is a blood-thirsty and will kill lots of people.

But, firstly he invites the people of the world to Islam sincerely and with kindness and wants to lead them to heaven, but some dictators and evil men start a war against him, so he fight with them.

We have to remember that our Imams are the Imams of mercy.

 

Edited by Lonely sunset

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lonely sunset said:

Salam Alaikom

According to the viewpoint of shia scholars, we have some kinds of war (Jihad) in Islam: Initial war (jihad Ebtedaee), defensive war and etc.

Most of the ancient and earlier scholars say: Initial war is obligatory for infallible Imams and they have to do it once a year at least.

They believe that this kind of war against infidels, is one of the duties of infallible Imams, but in the age of major occultation, this is not obligatory for scholars (Alrozat albahia, Shahid thani, book of Jihad).

But there are some criticisms:

1.     Most of the recent scholars reject such kind of war and they do not believe in it.

2.     If we accept that, but the question is: why the Prophet Muhammad and Infallible Imams (pbut) did not do it during their life, specially The Prophet and Imam Ali, because they were ruler in their time.

3.     Moreover, some nowadays scholars believe that some of the rulings of Islam belong to a specific time of the Imams.

 

 

 

Someone said that Imam Mahdi will conquer the world after his appearance (Zohur). This is not a true believe about Imam Mahdi, because it means that he is a blood-thirsty and will kill lots of people. 

But, firstly he invites the people of the world to Islam sincerely and with kindness and wants to lead them to heaven, but some dictators and evil men start a war against him, so he fight with them.

We have to remember that our Imams are the Imams of mercy.

 

I wasn't trying to paint our Imam as such. I recognise that it is the oppressive governments that will start wars with the Imam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have two answer for you brother

Firest:documentary of your allegation is wrong you can pay attention and study Emam Hossein (P. B. O. H)  renovation and see Emam had called true Islam for people for two months and finally in the Ashora day fight with Yazid army for half of day. Exactly Yazid army forced him to fighting. This act of Emam show us the fighting is finally plan of calling of Islam the first and second and third plan of calling are good action and good behaviors and speaking with people to guide them to Islam 

Second: my brother Islamic law has two dimensions first personal law second social law. 

Islam force people in social law like punishment of misfeasance that is done in city but in personal law people is free for example Muslim is free for praying.  Different point between shia and isis is it that I say in the second part of my answer isis force people and kill them for personal law of Islam without any thinking and reason even don't teach them Islam honest  but shia in first teach them and guide them if they don't accept and  start fighting keep himself from Kafer(pagan) attacking  like Emam Hossein(P. B. O. H)

والسلام علی من اتبع الهدی

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother Abuhashem

Salam Alaikom

Maybe you have not pay attention to my writing very well.

I did not say that we have not any type of Jihad in Islam, but I said that we do not have the first type of Jihad (Initial war). I described that the initial war is to attack infidels after calling them to Islam and rejecting it by them.

You said that the war of Imam Hosein is an instance of it, but I say that it was not the initial war, because they (Yazid army) forced him to war and he did not want to fight them. So it is not the initial war but it was a defensive war. If you read the sentences of Imam Hosein from Mecca to Karbala, you will find that he says: I do not want to fight you so let me go somewhere far to live.

The second answer is wrong as well.

Because the type of force in both case (personal and social laws) is obligation by God and there is no sanction and guarantee for them. For example people are free to pray or not and nobody can do anything and also people are free to punish or not and nobody have right to rebuke.

Moreover, if we accept that we are forced for social laws of Islam, but it is accepted only in a society or country that have Islamic government, and we do not have right to punish other Muslims in other countries.

 

Edited by Lonely sunset

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/31/2016 at 11:22 PM, Abuhashem said:

 

 

8 hours ago, Lonely sunset said:

Brother Abuhashem

Salam Alaikom

السلام علیکم 

Hi my brother 

In Firest I can say jehad is plan that has two dimensions!  First softwar that is speaking and social action second hardwar that do it by weapons you can see both of two dimensions in Emam Hossein (P. B. O. H) revolution

In second part of your answer I can say word of Muslim  in Arabic language mean sumbit of Allah in all of the world Muslim country or unMuslim country 

You can see Jewry do and pay attention to do Judaism law very well and completely in Israel and abroad of it Islam is more important than Judaism that's why we have to pay attention more and if do taboo that it has punishment we have been published so in Islamic land or abroad of it 

My brother! The second part of my answer is out of discussion 

Our discussion is jihad and how we can do it carefully  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On May 22, 2016 at 11:14 PM, The Batman said:

The famous view is that offensive Jihad is under the control of the infallible Imam, and we believe the Imam will come and conquer the Earth. Even Christians and Jews believe Jesus (Or the Messiah) will judge the world violently. 

And this is the difference between us, it is that the most famous opinion in our sect says that this type of Jihad can only be under the banner of an infallible Imam. Yes a minority of scholars disagreed (I can only think of al-Khoei) - but the likeliness of such a Jihad being issued is incredibly low, so for the mean time it seems that we are waiting for the Hidden Imam to rise against the forces of Evil.

I am saying that Allamah Al -Hilli believes in violence to spread Islam not peace because he believes that if the Imam is present Jihad against non-Muslims is Wajib each year except if there is a benefit to peace in which case it is PERMITTED, NOT OBLIGATORY, to keep peace. This is like ISIL, except in a different time. So how come Shias don't condemn him? I mean they always say that their sect is peaceful but their scholars like Al-Hilli state otherwise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On June 2, 2016 at 6:25 AM, Lonely sunset said:

Brother Abuhashem

Salam Alaikom

Maybe you have not pay attention to my writing very well.

I did not say that we have not any type of Jihad in Islam, but I said that we do not have the first type of Jihad (Initial war). I described that the initial war is to attack infidels after calling them to Islam and rejecting it by them.

You said that the war of Imam Hosein is an instance of it, but I say that it was not the initial war, because they (Yazid army) forced him to war and he did not want to fight them. So it is not the initial war but it was a defensive war. If you read the sentences of Imam Hosein from Mecca to Karbala, you will find that he says: I do not want to fight you so let me go somewhere far to live.

The second answer is wrong as well.

Because the type of force in both case (personal and social laws) is obligation by God and there is no sanction and guarantee for them. For example people are free to pray or not and nobody can do anything and also people are free to punish or not and nobody have right to rebuke.

Moreover, if we accept that we are forced for social laws of Islam, but it is accepted only in a society or country that have Islamic government, and we do not have right to punish other Muslims in other countries.

 

You Shias claim that your sect is different than the Sunni sect in terms of violence, Allamah Al-Hilli believes in violence to spread Islam, just in a different time. He states in his book that with the presence of the Imam the non-Muslims are fought and that the people of the book convert pay the Jizya or die, and the other non-Muslims must convert or die! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On May 31, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Abuhashem said:

I have two answer for you brother

Firest:documentary of your allegation is wrong you can pay attention and study Emam Hossein (P. B. O. H)  renovation and see Emam had called true Islam for people for two months and finally in the Ashora day fight with Yazid army for half of day. Exactly Yazid army forced him to fighting. This act of Emam show us the fighting is finally plan of calling of Islam the first and second and third plan of calling are good action and good behaviors and speaking with people to guide them to Islam 

Second: my brother Islamic law has two dimensions first personal law second social law. 

Islam force people in social law like punishment of misfeasance that is done in city but in personal law people is free for example Muslim is free for praying.  Different point between shia and isis is it that I say in the second part of my answer isis force people and kill them for personal law of Islam without any thinking and reason even don't teach them Islam honest  but shia in first teach them and guide them if they don't accept and  start fighting keep himself from Kafer(pagan) attacking  like Emam Hossein(P. B. O. H)

والسلام علی من اتبع الهدی

The discussion is about the view of Allamah Al-Hilli and his views on Jihad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ElNoori said:

The discussion is about the view of Allamah Al-Hilli and his views on Jihad

If you want to know the Shia view you look at history and how the 12 Imams acted.

Scholars can have their personal opinions which not necessarily would be endorsed by the Imams.

The best way to know the correct Hadith from the incorrect, according to kulayni , is to correspond the Hadith to the Quran.

If it corresponds accept it,if it does not , reject it.

Similarly if a scholar says something it should correspond with the Quran and the traditions of the Ahlul bayt.

If it doesn't ignore it.

Edited by certainclarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, certainclarity said:

If you want to know the Shia view you look at history and how the 12 Imams acted.

Scholars can have their personal opinions which not necessarily would be endorsed by the Imams.

The best way to know the correct Hadith from the incorrect, according to kulayni , is to correspond the Hadith to the Quran.

If it corresponds accept it,if it does not , reject it.

Similarly if a scholar says something it should correspond with the Quran and the traditions of the Ahlul bayt.

If it doesn't ignore it.

I'm not saying Islam is violent, I'm asking if Allamah Al Hilli believes in it. From what I saw he believes in violence to spread Islam, but in a different period, don't get off topic, the topic isn't Islam but Al-Hilli's views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ElNoori said:

I'm not saying Islam is violent, I'm asking if Allamah Al Hilli believes in it. From what I saw he believes in violence to spread Islam, but in a different period, don't get off topic, the topic isn't Islam but Al-Hilli's views.

This is not off topic. Does his view correspond with the acts of Ahlul bayt and Quran? 

If it does accept it. If it does not reject it, which ever scholar they maybe.

And this is not only about the issue of violence, but in any matter.

If Imam Ali never did such a thing , Alameh Hili's view and belief on this topic  is useless.

Edited by certainclarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. 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.


×
×
  • Create New...