Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

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

Rate this topic


Mawdudi

Recommended Posts

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

Asaalaamualaikum,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
On 4/11/2018 at 12:00 AM, Shi3i_jadeed said:

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

Salam 

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

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

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

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
49 minutes ago, ali_fatheroforphans said:

Can you prove your position based on the Quran?

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Salam, 

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
22 minutes ago, حسين said:

Salam, 

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

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

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

Edited by Shi3i_jadeed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 minutes ago, Shi3i_jadeed said:

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

Salam,

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, ali_fatheroforphans said:

Can you prove your position based on the Quran?

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

Edited by AbdusSibtayn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

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

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

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

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

Edited by ali_fatheroforphans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, ali_fatheroforphans said:

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Salam,

 

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...
Guest Aly Seikh

I did some research a time ago about this against a popular notion among us Shias that Muslim Conquest was bad and Imam Ali had nothing to do with it.

Well what I found at last was, Ali surely didn't participated the invasions but he also didn't opposed it. 

There are conflicting reports that Umer wanted to gave the command to attack Sassanids to Ali but he refused. Even though if he didn't wanted the expansion he could had at least warned Umer or people or apologized it during his Caliphate, instead he advised Umer to stay in Medina because the ummat needs him and he could've been killed in war with Persians. Not only that he participated in peace treaty with Christians in Jerusalem after it's captured, he let Salman Farsi govern Persia after it was conquered as he took permission for it, Ali also imposed two Arab governors in the Persia at his Caliphate and he also received war booty.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
On 9/27/2022 at 2:30 AM, Guest Aly Seikh said:

I did some research a time ago about this against a popular notion among us Shias that Muslim Conquest was bad and Imam Ali had nothing to do with it.

Well what I found at last was, Ali surely didn't participated the invasions but he also didn't opposed it. 

There are conflicting reports that Umer wanted to gave the command to attack Sassanids to Ali but he refused. Even though if he didn't wanted the expansion he could had at least warned Umer or people or apologized it during his Caliphate, instead he advised Umer to stay in Medina because the ummat needs him and he could've been killed in war with Persians. Not only that he participated in peace treaty with Christians in Jerusalem after it's captured, he let Salman Farsi govern Persia after it was conquered as he took permission for it, Ali also imposed two Arab governors in the Persia at his Caliphate and he also received war booty.

 

Well, by his denial to participate, it seems that he did not like it, actions speak louder than words. And, why should he have apologized for the actions of others? It could be seen in the history that he tried to compensate the women of royal persian family by helping them to choose groom for them. It shows that he was worried about their welfare and wanted to subside their anger.

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...