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

[Mawdudi 43]

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. 

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? 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)

[baseball_fan_313 430]

Walaykum Salam
Its a categorical mistake to compare the Muslim conquest to isis or the like. Conquest was simply a part of life back then, either they would conquer and spread their civilization or they would be conquered, there were fundamentally no other options. Islam was not forced upon the conquered people but submitting to the Muslim empire was, they could still practice their religion. The conquests were probably the best thing the three [caliphs] who preceded Ali (as) did. That being said imam Ali (as) was not pleased with the rule of those 3, he made that clear. He did not give bay'ah to abu bakr until at least 6 months after he became the 'caliph'.  Fatima (sa) died angry at Abu Bakr after Abu Bakr and his goons went to Imam Ali's house to coerce him into giving bay'ah. After the assassination of Umar there was a council that decided who the next caliph would be. Ali (as) refused the condition of following the sunnah of abu bakr and umar so uthman became the 'caliph'. 

Edited April 9, 2018 by Hameedeh
Inappropriate language. [Edited to caliphs]

[Mawdudi 43]

Interesting.....whatever happened to 'LA IKRAHA FIDEEN'? Arent things like Jizya part of deen? Also, many people like to romanticize the Islamic conquests. For example, when Umar ibn Al Khattab invaded Persia it took a long time to actually conquer the WHOLE of Persia as there were many rebellions. Think of it from the perspective of the Persians. Some Arabs just come and invade your nation and you don't even know what Islam is and they start killing and taking women slaves etc.

Furthermore, there is a big difference between conquests such as the conquest of Perisa and the fath al mecca and the conquests of Rasoolullah. Rasoolullah (saw) was invited to Madinah by the Ansar and no one invited Umar or Abu Bakr etc. Also, why shouldn't I compare these conquests to ISIS, Alqaeda and Ikkwani Ideology? Because its the same thing technically, The founder of the Ikhwan Al Muslimeen Hassan Al Banna said: " It is the nature of Islam to conquer the world and impose its laws on the entire planet". Our prophet sent letters to the monarchs of Persia , Byzantium, Egypt and Abasyniss and he encouraged preaching...not forcing, invading and killing (Although there some exceptions).

Also, to your point about the nature of the start if the islamic period.... it's still the same case.. your either conquer or comply with another ideology.  For example, if you live in the west and your a muslim are you a kuffaar? No, i don't think so, however using YOUR LOGIC we should wage a war against the western governments under which we live because they are not Islamic. 

[baseball_fan_313 430]

I think you misunderstood slightly. The Muslim empires expanded but did not force the people in its domain to accept Islam. They paid jizya and there are no early reports policy to force non-Muslim peoples to enter Islam. Check out Seeing Islam as Others Saw It by Robert Hoyland. The conditions of the past were different, nowadays countries do not just go and conquer new territories to expand the borders but this was the case in the past. Hassan Al Banna isn't wrong, he said it is the nature of Islam to dominate and not be dominated. If you do not dominate you are dominated there was no other way in the world at that time. I don't romanticized the Muslim conquests I recognize that yes abuses and crimes were committed (mainly against Muslims btw) but overall they were good and the results are obviously good. The Muslim empire in the early period didn't really oppress their kafir subjects they were too busy slaughtering ahlul bayt (as) and their shia. 

[Husayni 1,151]

Imam Ali (as) did not see the rule of the caliphs as legitimate, so the wars were not legitimate as well, thus him not participating in them.

[Panzerwaffe 1,213]

^if that was the case the closest companions of Ali would not have so eagerly participated in the futuhat 

It's an enigma why Ali was never given a command probably as he was still viewed as suspicion by the caliphs due to his earlier resistance and huge stature 

Further  if conquests were illegal then Ali would not have accepted a stipend and spoils of war from them 

[Ashvazdanghe 8,517]

45 minutes ago, Panzerwaffe said:

Further  if conquests were illegal then Ali would not have accepted a stipend and spoils of war from them 

Imam Ali (as) accepted stipend and spoils of war as it was distribute among all Muslims but he don't hold them for himself ,for example when they bring captured Iranians in presence of second Kaliph he freed Iranians from his share from spoiles of war that leads to freeing all Iraninas from slavery.

[Soldiers and Saffron 6,808]

Salam,

Imam Ali(as), the first man to become muslim after Rasulullah(S), his cousin and son in law, the man practically raised by the Holy Prophet(S) himself, was arguable the strongest fighter among the men as numerous hadiths tell us about how he fought and how the enemies feared him. He fought when all others were afraid. From the very early days of islam he fought in every single battle and war during the time of Rasulullah(S), the only battle he did not take part in was the battle against the romans, thats because Rasulullah(S) asked him to stay as he knew the romans would not ride out to meet them on the battlefield and they did not.

Having such a great fighter and commander like Imam Ali(as) sitting at home while there are wars most certainly does not make sense.

There are many reasons why he was not allowed positions of power and we could dissect these but most in my opinion the most important thing to highlight regarding the wars that came after the Rasulullah(S) is that the wars did not follow Islamic conduct. The wars were not to fight kafirs fi sabilillah but to gain power and wealth in the name of Islam, to use the religion as a power tool. It was not how Rasulullah(S) spread islam.

Imam Ali(as) was himself oppressed by the rulers around him, they knew he would not lead in their best interest but to lead in the best interest of Islam, which meant no hoarding of money, no nice palaces with harams. Imam Ali(as), just like our Holy Prophet(S) lived his whole life like a poor man and when the people ran out of options after the assassination of the previous caliph, they begged Imam Ali(as) to take caliphate, he was reluctant as he knew the state of the people. He warmed them that what he wanted to achieve might be different from what they wanted to achieve, yet they insisted on him taking leadership and so he did.

And as suspected, he did not work to make people richer but to make people follow Islam, the rich people became less rich and the poor people became more rich, the haram stopped, the oppression stopped, the injustice stopped. But the people were not happy with this, they fought against him over and over again:

The battle of Siffin, the battle of Jamal, the battle of Nahrawan. There was no peace for Imam Ali(as), as he himself said:

Look at what disaster became of the islamic leadership after Imam Ali(as)... one corrupt and power hungry leader after the other... the same people who hated Rasulullah(S) and Islam and their offspring became the leaders of Islam and see how that ended.

I recommend you brother to study the life of Imam Ali(as) in depth to understand why he was not to the Ummah what he should have been:

The story of Abu Turab(as) is truly heartbreaking...

[Ashvazdanghe 8,517]

6 hours ago, Mawdudi said:

Interesting.....whatever happened to 'LA IKRAHA FIDEEN'? Arent things like Jizya part of deen? Also, many people like to romanticize the Islamic conquests. For example, when Umar ibn Al Khattab invaded Persia it took a long time to actually conquer the WHOLE of Persia as there were many rebellions. Think of it from the perspective of the Persians. Some Arabs just come and invade your nation and you don't even know what Islam is and they start killing and taking women slaves etc.

Furthermore, there is a big difference between conquests such as the conquest of Perisa and the fath al mecca and the conquests of Rasoolullah. Rasoolullah (saw) was invited to Madinah by the Ansar and no one invited Umar or Abu Bakr etc. Also, why shouldn't I compare these conquests to ISIS, Alqaeda and Ikkwani Ideology? Because its the same thing technically, The founder of the Ikhwan Al Muslimeen Hassan Al Banna said: " It is the nature of Islam to conquer the world and impose its laws on the entire planet". Our prophet sent letters to the monarchs of Persia , Byzantium, Egypt and Abasyniss and he encouraged preaching...not forcing, invading and killing (Although there some exceptions).

Also, to your point about the nature of the start if the islamic period.... it's still the same case.. your either conquer or comply with another ideology.  For example, if you live in the west and your a muslim are you a kuffaar? No, i don't think so, however using YOUR LOGIC we should wage a war against the western governments under which we live because they are not Islamic. 

Salam doctrine of RasullAllah & Imam Ali (as) and rest of Imams is conquering through heart & reasoning not by sword ,Iranians become shia muslim because Ahlulbayt (as) always were kind & reasonable toward them thus because of their love Iranains become Shia & when Imam Mahdi (as) reappears he will not start war ,at first he tries to convince everybody for accepting Islam & he will not start masscare and bloodshed.   

Edited April 8, 2018 by Ashvazdanghe

[Panzerwaffe 1,213]

4 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Imam Ali (as) accepted stipend and spoils of war as it was distribute among all Muslims but he don't hold them for himself ,for example when they bring captured Iranians in presence of second Kaliph he freed Iranians from his share from spoiles of war that leads to freeing all Iraninas from slavery.

so during his caliphate was it an official policy to free all iranian slaves ?

 

[AbdusSibtayn 944]

6 hours ago, Panzerwaffe said:

if that was the case the closest companions of Ali would not have so eagerly participated in the futuhat 

I have a hypothesis. He asked his closest companions to cooperate with the government because he had seen what they had done to Fatima (sa),  Malik ibn Nuwayra (ra) , Abu Dharr al-Ghiffari (ra) and Ammar ibn Yasir (ra). Any sign of dissidence from the government or the rulers was being seen as rebellion. So it was in their best interest to keep mum and do what everyone else was doing.
Ali (as) could, due to his stature (as you yourself have also said) get away with his dissident quietism, but the other lesser companions enjoyed no such immunity.

[AbdusSibtayn 944]

1 hour ago, Panzerwaffe said:

so during his caliphate was it an official policy to free all iranian slaves ?

No brother, I think you've misunderstood what brother @Ashvazdanghe tried to say. He is saying that he did not use the stipends for himself despite accepting them, but spent them elsewhere on other tasks, such as freeing slaves. For his personal expenses, he had khums from his followers. This is the shi'i position.

Edited April 8, 2018 by AbdusSibtayn

[SIAR14 408]

7 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

when Imam Mahdi (as) reappears he will not start war ,at first he tries to convince everybody for accepting Islam & he will not start masscare and bloodshed.   

Brother do you have haidth to support this prophecy?

[Mawdudi 43]

Thanks for the reply's brothers,

So here's a QUESTION: If the Ahlulybayt would have been in charge at the times of Abu bakr, Umar and uthman and so on...would they carry out the conquests of Persia and byzantine etc? And if so would they conduct them differently and HOW?

[Ashvazdanghe 8,517]

1 hour ago, Mawdudi said:

Thanks for the reply's brothers,

So here's a QUESTION: If the Ahlulybayt would have been in charge at the times of Abu bakr, Umar and uthman and so on...would they carry out the conquests of Persia and byzantine etc? And if so would they conduct them differently and HOW?

They would act differently even Imam Ali (as ) converted a big group of christians to Islam by answering their questions at time first caliph as Yemenians that where under control of Iran and their governor was an Sasanid agent converted to Islam although he never meet Prophet  (pbu)

http://imamalicenter.se/fa/jaslighFA

 

https://www.mouood.org/component/k2/item/9751-مناظره-امام-رضا-با-جاثلیق-دانشمند-بزرگ-مسیحی.html

Imam Reza (as) debate with other religions  scholars

 

 

https://youtu.be/-5yQp8lIVSI

 

Knowledge of Infallibles 

https://youtu.be/Lhu0Ec3JKRI

 

Manzela Hadith

https://youtu.be/IeeeIoLfQco

 

Edited April 8, 2018 by Ashvazdanghe

[Ashvazdanghe 8,517]

2 hours ago, SIAR14 said:

Brother do you have haidth to support this prophecy?

 https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia-ahlul-bayt-dilp-team/special-specifications-imam-al-mahdi

[SIAR14 408]

8 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

 https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia-ahlul-bayt-dilp-team/special-specifications-imam-al-mahdi

Brother there is no topic in it which says Imam (A.S) will invite people towards Islam after His (A.Sl) arrival, before starting wars.

[000 432]

I would like to know what was Maududi's take on this if he had written one...

[myouvial 399]

3 hours ago, SIAR14 said:

Brother there is no topic in it which says Imam (A.S) will invite people towards Islam after His (A.Sl) arrival, before starting wars.

I think it is implied in :

"3.Imam al-Mahdi (as) will come as soon as people become ready for him. People throughout the history were NEVER ready. They killed prophets, and Imams one after the other. However Allah continued to send prophets till He finally sent Prophet Muhammad who brought the last message at the time when the evolution of the mind of human being reached its maturity, and thus Allah provided them with the most complete and final religion. After that there was no need to send a new message."

So the measure of readiness has to be a certain level for all human on earth. Are now all human on earth well informed of Imam Mahdi a.s., Islam, and the tenets/teaching/logic at certain level ?

I with my limitation see it as it is still far away. However, there must be someones who know better than me.

Edited April 9, 2018 by myouvial
putting quotation from reference

[Ashvazdanghe 8,517]

3 hours ago, SIAR14 said:

Brother there is no topic in it which says Imam (A.S) will invite people towards Islam after His (A.Sl) arrival, before starting wars.

https://www.al-islam.org/life-imam-al-mahdi-baqir-shareef-al-qurashi

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234954347-online-books-on-imam-mahdi-official-thread/

[GreatOne 1]

My parable post wasn't published...

[Mod Note: This is a serious topic. No fantasy parable (joke) allowed.]

Edited April 10, 2018 by Hameedeh
Mod Note

[ShiaMan14 7,155]

On 4/7/2018 at 6:30 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. 

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? 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)

Salaam brother,

From a pure Islamic perspective, offensive wars are not permitted. Expansionism is not permitted for the sake of land grabbing. The battles fought during the time of the Prophet were either to defend Muslims or their properties.

On 4/7/2018 at 7:57 PM, Shi3i_jadeed said:

Walaykum Salam
Its a categorical mistake to compare the Muslim conquest to isis or the like. Conquest was simply a part of life back then, either they would conquer and spread their civilization or they would be conquered, there were fundamentally no other options. Islam was not forced upon the conquered people but submitting to the Muslim empire was, they could still practice their religion. The conquests were probably the best thing the three [caliphs] who preceded Ali (as) did. That being said imam Ali (as) was not pleased with the rule of those 3, he made that clear. He did not give bay'ah to abu bakr until at least 6 months after he became the 'caliph'.  Fatima (sa) died angry at Abu Bakr after Abu Bakr and his goons went to Imam Ali's house to coerce him into giving bay'ah. After the assassination of Umar there was a council that decided who the next caliph would be. Ali (as) refused the condition of following the sunnah of abu bakr and umar so uthman became the 'caliph'. 

Absolutely not. The conquests were the worst thing they did. It was the result of these conquests that Islam became associated with barbarism.

Furthermore, Imam Ali (as) didn't give bayah. He agreed to rescind his claim to the caliphate but that is not the same as giving bayah.

Lastly, Islam preaches "live and let live" not conquer or be conquered.

 

 

 

 

[Panzerwaffe 1,213]

^ what evidence is there that Ali regarded conquests illegal ?

 

[Ashvazdanghe 8,517]

1 minute ago, Panzerwaffe said:

^ what evidence is there that Ali regarded conquests illegal ?

 

Only thing that I know that Imam Ali(as) just advised Umar for staying at Medina instead of going to battlefront & Salman (ra) in Kasra helped the Muslims Army to conquer it peacefully nothing more.

[Panzerwaffe 1,213]

On 4/8/2018 at 11:25 AM, Mawdudi said:

Thanks for the reply's brothers,

So here's a QUESTION: If the Ahlulybayt would have been in charge at the times of Abu bakr, Umar and uthman and so on...would they carry out the conquests of Persia and byzantine etc? And if so would they conduct them differently and HOW?

Yes for sure don't forget jaffar died fighting against Romans and mukhtars father against Persians  

Difference would be the leaders of the armies would be more from Ansar , banu hashim banu makhzum and their allies esp from yemen

The division of spoils would be more like how prophet and Abu bakr did , umar changed that to a graded system 

No fiefdoms unlike in times of uthman

More fiscal responsibility for governors like in umars time 

Less high positions to Jews and Christians unlike in muawiyah Syria 

 

 

 

 

[Panzerwaffe 1,213]

1 minute ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Only thing that I know that Imam Ali(as) just advised Umar for staying at Medina instead of going to battlefront & Salman (ra) in Kasra helped the Muslims Army to conquer it peacefully nothing more.

Brother that was strategic advice so Muslims don't lose their caliph 

Generally the early futuhat were not as bloody as in Iraq and Syria people were already sick of Roman and sassanian tax exploitation  and the big war between them just a few years earlier

[Panzerwaffe 1,213]

On 4/8/2018 at 8:33 AM, AbdusSibtayn said:

No brother, I think you've misunderstood what brother @Ashvazdanghe tried to say. He is saying that he did not use the stipends for himself despite accepting them, but spent them elsewhere on other tasks, such as freeing slaves. For his personal expenses, he had khums from his followers. This is the shi'i position.

Brother Id like to see how the poor impoverished followers of imam Ali paid Khums if it was not from the stipend they got from baytulmal or their own participation in wars 

[Ashvazdanghe 8,517]

7 minutes ago, Panzerwaffe said:

Brother Id like to see how the poor impoverished followers of imam Ali paid Khums if it was not from the stipend they got from baytulmal or their own participation in wars 

At time of Imam Ali (as) only people that were participating in war would pay Khums and non of followers  of Imam Ali (as) participated in wars & during his caliphate he was paying equal amount of  money to everyone from poor or rich without any difference from baytulmal also during time of his caliphate muslims didnt have Jihad war so they didn't pay the khums.

Edited April 10, 2018 by Ashvazdanghe

[AbdusSibtayn 944]

16 hours ago, Panzerwaffe said:

Brother Id like to see how the poor impoverished followers of imam Ali paid Khums if it was not from the stipend they got from baytulmal or their own participation in wars 

I have not denied the fact that his followers were cooperating with the government, dear brother, and perhaps under his (as) own advice. I may be mistaken, but nor do I think that all his followers were impoverished, Salman (ra), Uthman ibn Hunayf (ra) and some others were working for the government in administrative capacity, plus the Imam(as) also earned his livelihood, I can't recall them at the moment, but I have read hadiths in Sunni Sihah that mention him caring for camels and tending to palm groves as late as the reign of Uthman ibn Affan, he had grown up sons who could support him, etc etc. As it is, his needs were very few, his lifestyle very frugal, so he could make do with little money.

Of course people are going to have different interpretations of history, and weigh different evidences differently; that's the reason why denominational differences exist in the first place. I admit that i don't know much about this issue, maybe someone more knowledgeable can answer your questions.  

Salam.

[baseball_fan_313 430]

On 4/9/2018 at 11:23 AM, ShiaMan14 said:

Salaam brother,

From a pure Islamic perspective, offensive wars are not permitted. Expansionism is not permitted for the sake of land grabbing. The battles fought during the time of the Prophet were either to defend Muslims or their properties.

Absolutely not. The conquests were the worst thing they did. It was the result of these conquests that Islam became associated with barbarism.

Furthermore, Imam Ali (as) didn't give bayah. He agreed to rescind his claim to the caliphate but that is not the same as giving bayah.

Lastly, Islam preaches "live and let live" not conquer or be conquered.

 

 

 

 

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.

[AbdusSibtayn 944]

32 minutes ago, Shi3i_jadeed said:

The expansions spread Islam, alhamdulillah.

I beg to disagree, brother. The legitimacy of the conquests aside, it is now an established fact in the academia that these conquerors did nothing to spread Islam by converting the conquered populace, if anything, they discouraged conversions because that would decrease revenue via jiziya. The official policy of both the Umayyad and Abbasid governments , and the successive Sultanates they spawned,regarding conversions was a hands- off one, and the first three Caliphs treated the conquests as Arab subjugation of a non-Arab populace (ref: the wretched condition of the 'mawali' converts, the Arab-Ajam schism), rather than conquests for the sake of spreading Islam. Islam spread in South and Central Asia and West Africa through the agency of Muslim saints, and in North Africa through a combination of overland trade and itinerant preaching, and in South East Asia through seafaring trade. 

Read the book 'The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier' by Richard M. Eaton to know where I am coming from, the Bengalis form the second largest Muslim ethnic group after the Arabs.

[baseball_fan_313 430]

24 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

I beg to disagree, brother. The legitimacy of the conquests aside, it is now an established fact in the academia that these conquerors did nothing to spread Islam by converting the conquered populace, if anything, they discouraged conversions because that would decrease revenue via jiziya. The official policy of both the Umayyad and Abbasid governments , and the successive Sultanates they spawned,regarding conversions was a hands- off one, and the first three Caliphs treated the conquests as Arab subjugation of a non-Arab populace (ref: the wretched condition of the 'mawali' converts, the Arab-Ajam schism), rather than conquests for the sake of spreading Islam. Islam spread in South and Central Asia and West Africa through the agency of Muslim saints, and in North Africa through a combination of overland trade and itinerant preaching, and in South East Asia through seafaring trade. 

Read the book 'The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier' by Richard M. Eaton to know where I am coming from, the Bengalis form the second largest Muslim ethnic group after the Arabs.

Yes I know this. For instance when the Muslim conquerors took Fustat they basically just built a city right next to the established one and didn't mix with the conquered people. They spread the domain of the Muslim state which allowed Islam to eventually spread in those areas. I'm well aware of the problems under early Muslim empires, I don't romanticize the conquests but I think they were overall good and either way they were legitimate. 

[haidermpr 183]

On 4/8/2018 at 5:00 AM, 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? 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)

Wa alaikum as salam,

Brother you raised very valid question and it proves that you are learning things rather having blind faith in anything. Learning is part and parcel of life and we must continue our journey of getting educated until we reach in grave. 

There are very certain reasons because of which Imam Ali (as) never took part in any war during the first three calpihs and I can summarize as below-

1. First three caliphs were not legitimate one and they had usurped the rights of AhleBait (as) and for further reading on the subject you can read Sermon in Nahjul Balgha especially Khutba e Shiqshiqya and its commentary.

2. Fighting under army of any of these 3 caliphs would have means that Imam Ali (as) accepted them as his leader and caliph. He had been offered role of commander of muslim army several times but he refused to take any positions.

3. Islam believes in spreading message of love and compassion and convert people's heart rather forcing them to convert under the blade of swords..Converting people with swords will create society of hypocrites and not of Momen and Islam needs momin not munafiq. Banu Umayya clan is best example of munafiq who got converted to Islam after conquest of Makka due to threat to their life.

Some people believe that Imam Ali (as) pledged his allegiance to AbuBakr after 6 months. that is completely rubbish, he just withdrawn himself from robe of caliphate and was busy teaching people essence of Islam. He even refused to accept allegiance of muslim community after murder of Usman but accepted after much deliberations and acceptance by the community that they will obey his all commands. Talha and Zubair were first to pledge allegiance to Maula Ali (as) and first to break their Oath. Few people used to write in their historical claims that they were forced to pledge allegiance though Imam Ali (as) never forced allegiance on anyone. Ibn Umar refused to pay his allegiance and Maula Ali (as) didn't force him at the time when Talha and Zubair paid allegiance.

4.Expansionist ideology of different caliphs and muslim rulers is not teaching of Islam and hence Maula Ali (as) refused to take part in any of wars under first 3 caliphs.

[ShiaMan14 7,155]

10 hours ago, Shi3i_jadeed said:

Yes I know this. For instance when the Muslim conquerors took Fustat they basically just built a city right next to the established one and didn't mix with the conquered people. They spread the domain of the Muslim state which allowed Islam to eventually spread in those areas. I'm well aware of the problems under early Muslim empires, I don't romanticize the conquests but I think they were overall good and either way they were legitimate. 

The Muslim empire spread, not islam.

You are romanticizing the expansion.

[myouvial 399]

It is better to go back to original meaning of the words rather than using current common understanding words. Probably, creating or referring dictionary which has most right and complete of word from Arabic into other languages. Or creating new dicitionary ?

Because this is the misunderstanding among/between human and members of shiachat.

Edited April 12, 2018 by myouvial