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  
Propaganda_of_the_Deed

Offensive Jihad Under Infallible Imam Only?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, 313 Seeker said:

You're welcome. Islam is clear about the limitations of battles which are only allowed to happen without exception in defence, according to Qur'an and the way of the Prophet. 

Offensive can be under a present infallible Imam.

Share this post


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

Offensive can be under a present infallible Imam.

The Imam is the last one to go against the commandments of Allah. All his wars will be reaction to being attacked first, and I'm sure there will be no lack of perpetrators. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, 313 Seeker said:

The Imam is the last one to go against the commandments of Allah. All his wars will be reaction to being attacked first, and I'm sure there will be no lack of perpetrators. 

I think you need to be cautious in what you are insinuating here. That if the Imam were to lead offensive jihad, would be against Allah's commandments. Nauthubillah.

The attached paper entitled "The Shi'I Perception of Jihad" mentions that expansionist (offensive) Jihad is deemed unlawful in the absence of the 12th Imam by most jurists.

The footnote to this point references Abdulaziz Sachedina's book "The Just Ruler in Shiite Islam".

Furthermore see the following on prohibition in Offensive Jihad in the Age of Ghaybah, which implies the absence of Imam 

 

Moghadam-Assaf.Shia-Perception-of-Jihad.pdf

Edited by Propaganda_of_the_Deed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

think you need to be cautious in what you are insinuating here. That if the Imam were to lead offensive jihad, would be against Allah's commandments. Nauthubillah.

I am saying that the Imam will not go against the rules outlined in the Qur'an, and that the offense you are talking about will be a result of the defence against an attacker. If a guy claims to be a Mahdi starts attacking people who are at peace with him, you can be sure it will be another fake "khalifa", didn't we have countless of these before... he will act like his grandfathers in line of the limitations of Allah and the Prophet. How many fake khalifas has history seen that somehow thought they are above the Law? Thar is my opinion anyway, and my criterion. Maybe you are waiting for a genghis Khan of Islam, like so many that came already and ruined the reputation of Islam. No offence meant, apologies if I sound harsh or offensive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, 313 Seeker said:

I am saying that the Imam will not go against the rules outlined in the Qur'an, and that the offense you are talking about will be a result of the defence against an attacker. If a guy claims to be a Mahdi starts attacking people who are at peace with him, you can be sure it will be another fake "khalifa", didn't we have countless of these before... he will act like his grandfathers in line of the limitations of Allah and the Prophet. How many fake khalifas has history seen that somehow thought they are above the Law? Thar is my opinion anyway, and my criterion. Maybe you are waiting for a genghis Khan of Islam, like so many that came already and ruined the reputation of Islam. No offence meant, apologies if I sound harsh or offensive. 

My point was that offensive jihad can only occur under the Imam.

Imam will establish justice and peace, before then, there will of course be oppression to fight against. However eventually the entire world will submit. 

Describing offensive jihad as "a result of the defence against an attacker" is not accurate and sounds like sugar coating.

There is nothing negative about offensive if waged by a just Masoom Imam, comparing it to fallible Muslim conquerers of the past is not helpful to the discussion, as there simply is no comparison.

Edited by Propaganda_of_the_Deed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Propaganda_of_the_Deed

It seems we are waiting for different Imams. That's normal and expected. My Imam abides by the clear sunah of Allah and the Prophet, which states clearly that we are not to attack unless attacked first. This is my idea of Islam, and my expectation of the coming Imam. He will not be ever attacking unless he is attacked first, and God willing through the rule of Law of God will spread peace and harmony, while defending himself with the divine "sword". No attacking people who don't attack him first. That would be tyrany in my opinion. But we know from prophetic narrations, that as soon as he emerges, pretty much the whole world willmatttack him, so there will be little time to attack people who don't attack him first anyway. So it all makes sense to me this way. But it is normal that people have different ideas and images of characters like Prophets and Imams. Everybody thinks of the coming Imam in their own way, and God only knows who of us is right, and who would recognise him if he emerges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

The footnote to this point references Abdulaziz Sachedina's book "The Just Ruler in Shiite Islam".

Furthermore see the following on prohibition in Offensive Jihad in the Age of Ghaybah, which implies the absence of Imam 

Salam allahyari just uses these narration to condem Iran revolution & shows leaders of Iran revolution as unjust peoples also he is one of agents of rift & division between Shias & Sunnis that causes islamophobes  like as Austtralian terrorist take advantage from this rift & attack Muslims anyway Iran didn't yet do offensive Jihad based on Nahjulbalagha the presence of Iran in Iraq & Syria was defensive battle that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) says if you don't face with tour enemy outside of your region you will have to fight with it inside your streets that will cause more damage & I was expecting a terrorist attack inside Australia because of it's anti Islam environment but goal of attacker from his manifesto was Constantinople (Istanbul) in Turkey & he used New Zealand as test subject that maybe we will have another attacks by people like him in Turkey that it needs that Turkey & European Muslims   take care more about security of Istanbul & themselves more than before that similar attacks won't happen there by people like him that enter to Turkey under cover of tourists specially from countries that white supremacist have  more influence & better organizations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

but goal of attacker from his manifesto was Constantinople (Istanbul) in Turkey 

Salam alaikum,

His goal in Turkey is turning the main mosque back into a church. I have to agree with imran Hosein on this point, that it was against the sunah of the Prophet to forcefully change churches into mosques. Therefore, in principle I personally agree the Sofia mosque should be given back to Christian administration. That's my opinion anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

The crux of the point is that offensive jihad can only happen under the Imam.

The Concept of Jihad

 

The concept of “jihad” needs to be understood clearly. Many people in the media take Qur’anic text out of context. And so let us see: what is the meaning of jihad?
 
The word “jihad” does not mean “holy war”. This is a Western rending of a broader concept in Islamic teaching. Ask any expert of Arabic language and he will tell you that “jihad” does not mean “holy war”. The term “holy war” has come from the Christian concept of “just war,” and has been used loosely as an Islamic term since the days of the Crusades.

 

So what does “jihad” mean?

In Arabic language, the word jihad literally means striving and working hard for something. In Islamic terminology, it retains the literal meaning in two different dimensions, which are expressed by “major jihad” and “minor jihad”.
 
The major jihad is known as the spiritual struggle, a struggle between two powers within ourselves: the soul and the body. The conscience is in conflict with the bodily desires. This spiritual conflict is an ongoing jihad within each one of us. Islam expects its followers to give preference to the soul and the conscience over the body and its desires.
 
The fasting in the month of Ramadhan is an example of the annual training for this major jihad.
 
The minor jihad is the armed struggle. However, that does not automatically mean unjustified use of violence. The minor jihad may be divided into two: aggression and defense. Aggression against any people is not permitted in Islam; however, defense is an absolute right of every individual and nation.
 
Capture2.JPG

Islam has allowed the minor jihad only to defend the Muslim people and their land, and to maintain peace in Muslim societies.

https://www.al-Islam.org/articles/peace-and-jihad-Islam-Sayyid-Muhammad-Rizvi

D- Rushing to the Defense of the Oppressed

Before touching this subject and the verses relating to it, a point must be mentioned. I stated that the permission for jihad is subject to some conditions. What are these conditions? One is that the opposing side must be in a state of aggression. Those comprising this side are attacking us, and because they are fighting against us, we must fight them. Are the conditions for jihad in fact limited to only this scenario that the other side wishes to fight against us?

Or are there other factors? Perhaps the other side does not propose to fight us, but is guilty of a gross injustice towards another group of human beings. We have it in our power to save those human beings from the clutches of that aggressor. If we do nothing, the effect is that we have helped the oppressor’s oppression against the oppressed.

https://www.al-Islam.org/jihad-holy-war-Islam-and-its-legitimacy-Qur'an-ayatullah-murtadha-mutahhari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, 313 Seeker said:

@Propaganda_of_the_Deed

It seems we are waiting for different Imams. That's normal and expected. My Imam abides by the clear sunah of Allah and the Prophet, which states clearly that we are not to attack unless attacked first. This is my idea of Islam, and my expectation of the coming Imam. He will not be ever attacking unless he is attacked first, and God willing through the rule of Law of God will spread peace and harmony, while defending himself with the divine "sword". No attacking people who don't attack him first. That would be tyrany in my opinion. 

The problem with this, is that we do not require an Imam to call for Defensive Jihad (they of course can) but in their absence, like today, a marja taqlid can issue a call for defensive jihad like Ayatollah Sistani just like the call for jihad in Iraq in 1914 against the British occupiers. To defend oneself is permitted.

Of course the Imam will fight against tyranny and oppression which entails defense, but the option to wage offensive jihad is within his authority to call it. Eventually the world will submit after the tribulations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, 313 Seeker said:

Salam alaikum,

His goal in Turkey is turning the main mosque back into a church. I have to agree with imran Hosein on this point, that it was against the sunah of the Prophet to forcefully change churches into mosques. Therefore, in principle I personally agree the Sofia mosque should be given back to Christian administration. That's my opinion anyway. 

it's more a museum than mosque now & doesn't use as mosque also it's Christian structure visible now for everyone & imran hosssein is agod person but he obsseed with idea of retaking Constantinople by Imam Mahdi (aj) that he says Imam must be chosen by a council & somehow he knows himself a member of this council. based on Sunni Hadiths & his interpretation Imam Mahdi (aj) will appear in in Constantinople & sign of his appearance ir recapturing Constantinople that it doesn't happen last time by a person from family of Prophet (pbu)

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

The problem with this, is that we do not require an Imam to call for Defensive Jihad (they of course can) but in their absence, like today, a marja taqlid can issue a call for defensive jihad like Ayatollah Sistani just like the call for jihad in Iraq in 1914 against the British occupiers. To defend oneself is permitted.

Of course the Imam will fight against tyranny and oppression which entails defense, but the option to wage offensive jihad is within his authority to call it. Eventually the world will submit after the tribulations.

I would like to know on what you base your belief of the Imam being allowed to attack people who are at peace with him. Thanks . Is there a clear Qur'an verse or hadith that clearly states this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

it's more a museum than mosque now & doesn't use as mosque also it's Christian structure visible now for everyone & imran hosssein is agod person but he obsseed with idea of retaking Constantinople by Imam Mahdi (aj) that he says Imam must choosen by a council & somehow he knows himself a member of this council. based on Sunni Hadiths. 

I like this guy and he makes many valid points in general. He is also an expert in Qur'an which balances out a lot of things for me. Especially his work on ribah is exceptional. Taking that church by force was a crime and an unislamic thing to do, hurting the ummah very much. This needs to be rectified in my opinion, so agree with Hussein imran and the shooter on this point personally. It being a museum now is testament to the cursedness and failure of the act. Another proof that it lacks blessing from God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 313 Seeker said:

clear sunah of Allah and the Prophet, which states clearly that we are not to attack unless attacked first. 

Can you expand on this please.which verses and hadith. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, 313 Seeker said:

I would like to know on what you base your belief of the Imam being allowed to attack people who are at peace with him. Thanks . Is there a clear Qur'an verse or hadith that clearly states this?

43 mins onwards he mentions narrations by Imam Al Sadiq as.

He also mentions the famous work Was'il al Shia on the chapter on Jihad, which states the Imams of Ahlul Bayt say we cannot go on offensive jihad without the pernission of the Proohet or the Imams.

 I've already shown you that it is in our jurisprudence, if you can show me where it says offensive jihad is NOT a valid concept at all in Shia Islam, would be appreciated.

Also:

"Arjomand’s discussion of the early development of this position is worth quoting at length:

“As for the jihad involving actual warfare, the obligation to undertake it became narrowly circumscribed in the time of the occultation. Al-Mufid (d. 413/1022), following Kulayni, added the dar al-iman(the realm of faith) to the traditional dichotomy of the dar al-Islam (house/realm of Islam) and the dar al-kufr (realm of infidelity), and presented jihad as the (nonviolent) struggle to convert the realm of Islam to the realm of faith (I.e. Shi‘ism), postponing the onslaught of the infidels. A generation later, al-Tusi (d. 460/1067) considered holy war in the absence of the Imam an error (khata), and over two centuries later, the Muhaqqiq al-Hilli (d. 676/1277) similarly ruled that jihad was not obligatory unless the believer was summoned by the Imam. Except for a passage in which jihad was considered “commendable” (mustahabb) but not obligatory on the frontier in the absence of the Imam, the possibility of holy war during the occultation was not envisaged. Therefore, the Muhaqqiq in effect limited jihad to defensive war.”42

Some Shi‘ite writers even avoid using the term jihad for defensive war in the absence of the Imam and speak instead of “holy war of defense” (harb difa‘iyyah muqaddasah). Such jurists restrict the term jihad to war initiated by the Muslims against unbelievers, the more precise technical term for which is jihad al-ibtida’I. More often, however, jihad is understood to include both offensive and defensive warfare."

https://www.al-Islam.org/articles/Islam-and-just-war-theory-Dr..-Muhammad-legenhausen

As you see in bold there is both offensive and defensive in Shia fiqh, the difference being offensive can only be called by an infallible Imam not a caliph etc.

Edited by Propaganda_of_the_Deed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Warilla said:

Can you expand on this please.which verses and hadith. 

Ok I plan to research haditha on this topic some day properly insha Allah, so it will take some time, but from memory of my hadith studies in the past that I didn't write down, nothing contradicts the Qur'an verses that are quite clear about the way:

Like for instance:

وَقَاتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ  - 2:190

Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you. 2:190

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@313 Seeker

This is quite clear and I agree with you. But there maybe grey areas such as premptative strikes. Or areas where we don't understand the wisdom of the Imam.

Eg. As in a group collaborating indirectly with attackers or preparing to attack. Khayber as a example comes to mind. 

Edited by Warilla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, 313 Seeker said:

I like this guy and he makes many valid points in general. He is also an expert in Qur'an which balances out a lot of things for me. Especially his work on ribah is exceptional. Taking that church by force was a crime and an unislamic thing to do, hurting the ummah very much. This needs to be rectified in my opinion, so agree with Hussein imran and the shooter on this point personally. It being a museum now is testament to the cursedness and failure of the act. Another proof that it lacks blessing from God.

He is good person & is on our side against extremism but interpretation of Qur'an without using teaching of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) makes  any person astray from right path ,his speeches about riba is good  but not sufficient & whole of stablishment of Ottoman Empire  from it’s  beginning base was unislamic & anti Shia that his fans support restablishing of this empire & want to make war between India & Pakistan & are supporting Turkey wars inside Syria & killing Kurds but we know from reliable Shia hadiths that Turks war inside Syria just will lead to defeating by Sufyani (la) & killing of many Turks & their supporters  and war of India & Pakistan is just in favor of Israel that has no place in Shia hadiths that both of these two are very similar to Jewish & Christian predictions with Islamic labels.

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Propaganda_of_the_Deed thanks for the links and videos.I couldn't find any proof for unprovoked offensive jihad in the long Islam.org article, and sayid Naqshawany fleetingly mentions the hadith without going into it. I'd like to see it in Arabic if possible,  but it is not do important because for me the limits are set in the Qur'an, and I don't believe hadith anyway that contradicts the sentiments of Qur'an and its direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Warilla said:

@313 Seeker

This is quite clear and I agree with you. But there maybe grey areas such as premptative strikes. Or areas where we don't understand the wisdom of the Imam.

Eg. As in a group collaborating indirectly with attackers or preparing to attack. Khayber as a example comes to mind. 

Look dear brother all I am saying is that Allah makes it clear (to me anyway) that we may not fight people who don't fight us. Elsewhere in the Qur'an there is talk about stopping the fight when the enemies stop. So the Imam wont go against those rules in my opinion, otherwise he will be crossing the bounds of what is ethical. I expect the word being under attack to be more complex than we can imagine, but in principle those are the rules for everyone including the Prophet and Imam. to be honest I see it this way just through logic. I think it is a cruel thing to do, to kill people who are at peace with you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 313 Seeker said:

@Propaganda_of_the_Deed thanks for the links and videos.I couldn't find any proof for unprovoked offensive jihad in the long Islam.org article, and sayid Naqshawany fleetingly mentions the hadith without going into it. I'd like to see it in Arabic if possible,  but it is not do important because for me the limits are set in the Qur'an, and I don't believe hadith anyway that contradicts the sentiments of Qur'an and its direction.

5 types are mentioned in this article, the 4 previous are clearly defensive.

5. Jihad with unbelievers so that they may abandon their false beliefs and incline towards Islam. This type of jihad is referred to as al‑jihad al‑ 'ibtidai (a case when fighting is initiated by Muslims) and has its own particular conditions and involves elaborate discussion.

https://www.al-Islam.org/al-tawhid/vol1-n3/defence-and-jihad-Qur'an-ahmad-jannati/defence-and-jihad-Qur'an

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 313 Seeker said:

Look dear brother all I am saying is that Allah makes it clear (to me anyway) that we may not fight people who don't fight us. Elsewhere in the Qur'an there is talk about stopping the fight when the enemies stop. So the Imam wont go against those rules in my opinion, otherwise he will be crossing the bounds of what is ethical. I expect the word being under attack to be more complex than we can imagine, but in principle those are the rules for everyone including the Prophet and Imam. to be honest I see it this way just through logic. I think it is a cruel thing to do, to kill people who are at peace with you. 

What about khizr killing a child and Prophet Musas negative reaction. (Example of logic being inefficient)

I believe there is a hadith, where Prophet orders a man to be killed but because he was in sajood Umar and abubakar refused. But Imam Ali carried out the orders without a second thought.

Edited by Warilla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

He is good person & is on our side against extremism but interpretation of Qur'an without using teaching of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) makes  any person astray from right path ,his speeches about riba is good  but not sufficient & whole of stablishment of Ottoman Empire  from it’s  beginning base was unislamic & anti Shia that his fans support restablishing of this empire & want to make war between India & Pakistan & are supporting Turkey wars inside Syria & killing Kurds but we know from reliable Shia hadiths that Turks war inside Syria just will lead to defeating by Sufyani (la) & war of India & Pakistan is just in favor of Israel.

His fans are not him. Politically he is aligned with WF, Russia, and Bashar. God knows what is enough to be saved from the hell fire, but this guy has good intentions and he one of the best scholars in the world for me. The balance will hopefully be in his favour in judgment day. Insha Allah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Warilla said:

What about khizr killing a child and Prophet Musas negative reaction. 

I believe there is a gadith

Good question. Khizr had premonition and was sent facts from the future, so in this way it cam be seen as defence. If Imam can do the same, then it would still be defensive like the terminator story that goes back and forth in time back to the future stuff :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

5 types are mentioned in this article, the 4 previous are clearly defensive.

5. Jihad with unbelievers so that they may abandon their false beliefs and incline towards Islam. This type of jihad is referred to as al‑jihad al‑ 'ibtidai (a case when fighting is initiated by Muslims) and has its own particular conditions and involves elaborate discussion.

https://www.al-Islam.org/al-tawhid/vol1-n3/defence-and-jihad-Qur'an-ahmad-jannati/defence-and-jihad-Qur'an

This contradicts the qur'anic verse saying there is no compulsion in religion, as well as Allah guiding whom He wants, and even the Prophet not being able to do a thing about it, except warn and inform. So out of the window with that for me :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember hadiths from Imam Ali on the topic of him I think leaving prisoners alive or being merciful at war being something he did because he knew that eventually his "Shia" would fail him, and that they would lose the battle of the generation that only his grand grand grand grandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandson would win. So he kept a lenient strategy towards those he defeated in order to save his family and true Shia from the inevitable defeat that was coming. I remember him saying that once the Mahdi arises the rules will be very different concerning prisoners and defeated enemies. That's if I remember correctly. 

Edited by 313 Seeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, 313 Seeker said:

This contradicts the qur'anic verse saying there is no compulsion in religion, as well as Allah guiding whom He wants, and even the Prophet not being able to do a thing about it, except warn and inform. So out of the window with that for me :)

Yes and the Qur'an also says to fight them too 9:29, and alike no compulsion, was also revealed in Madina. Many Makkan verses had a more pacifist approach due to the circumstances.

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

This verse is of course used by both extremists and haters.

However the topic of jihad al ibtidai, has conditions and needs elaboration as that previous article mentioned, and of course scholarship.

Certainly should not be summarily thrown out of the window because of a verse or two that you feel strongly by.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

Yes and the Qur'an also says to fight them too 9:29, and alike no compulsion, was also revealed in Madina. Many Makkan verses had a more pacifist approach due to the circumstances.

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

This verse is of course used by both extremists and haters.

However the topic of jihad al ibtidai, has conditions and needs elaboration as that previous article mentioned, and of course scholarship.

Certainly should not be summarily thrown out of the window because of a verse or two that you feel strongly by.

 

 

Ok good argument! 

Let me tell you why it doesn't make me fish it back from outside the window:

The verse you posted does not generalize a sequence of events. Remember that in other places the Qur'an talks of AHL kitab favourably. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that not all AHL kitab and not all non Muslims are the same. This verse talks about specific situation without saying attack first. On the other hand we have verses that clearly give this sequential rule of defence. And they are many more than two. Here is another one that is quite clear to me:

If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and send you peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you. 4:90

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, 313 Seeker said:

Ok good argument! 

Let me tell you why it doesn't make me fish it back from outside the window:

The verse you posted does not generalize a sequence of events. Remember that in other places the Qur'an talks of AHL kitab favourably. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that not all AHL kitab and not all non Muslims are the same. This verse talks about specific situation without saying attack first.

I am not in disagreement such numerous defensive verses exist, I understand there are both defensive and offensive after all in our fiqh.

Quote

There is only one verse which exclusively refers to al jihad al‑ ibtida’I (and perhaps some other verses as well may be interpreted as referring to it):

يَـٰٓأَيُّہَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ قَـٰتِلُواْ ٱلَّذِينَ يَلُونَكُم مِّنَ ٱلۡڪُفَّارِ وَلۡيَجِدُواْ فِيكُمۡ غِلۡظَةً۬‌ۚ وَٱعۡلَمُوٓاْ أَنَّ ٱللَّهَ مَعَ ٱلۡمُتَّقِينَ

O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that God is with the God‑fearing. (9:123)

The above‑mentioned verse calls for jihad against unbelievers who live in vicinity to Muslims; and it is natural that their efforts at propaga­ting Islam should begin with nearby regions and then spread gradually to distant ones. In the ensuing discussion, regarding the aims of jihad, we will explain how the starting of war against unbelievers (al jihad al‑ 'ibtida’I) is also a natural right.

 

 

The following verse refers to a nation of mujahidun who struggle sincerely and bravely, undertaking the duty of purging the Earth of polytheism. They are a people who are not deterred by any reproach or blame in their jihad and in their struggle to universalize the word of Truth.

يَـٰٓأَيُّہَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ مَن يَرۡتَدَّ مِنكُمۡ عَن دِينِهِۦ فَسَوۡفَ يَأۡتِى ٱللَّهُ بِقَوۡمٍ۬ يُحِبُّہُمۡ وَيُحِبُّونَهُ ۥۤ أَذِلَّةٍ عَلَى ٱلۡمُؤۡمِنِينَ أَعِزَّةٍ عَلَى ٱلۡكَـٰفِرِينَ يُجَـٰهِدُونَ فِى سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ وَلَا يَخَافُونَ لَوۡمَةَ لَآٮِٕمٍ۬‌ۚ

O believers, whoso of you turns from his religion, (know that in his stead) God will bring a people whom He loveth and who love Him, humble towards the believers stern towards the unbelievers, men who strive in the way of God, not fearing the reproach of any reproacher ....(5:54)

From this it can be concluded that al jihad al‑`ibtida’I as a call to the polytheists for return to monotheism is a legitimate and natural right, which is used when logical and rational approaches, peaceful invita­tions, communication of the Divine message, warnings, good tidings, proofs, and presentation and explanation of the Qur’anic verses prove of no avail.

This approach is not exclusive to religion, rather it is a method adopted by all nations. In all social orders and systems where the people accept and honour a law for the development and welfare of society, it is considered a right to take steps to make the rebels and the guilty, submit to the law after attempts at their guidance have failed on account of their obstinacy.

This is an innate right of every system. Then, why must a Divine system based on monotheism should be deprived of it?

In the light of the above discussion, the verse “Fight the unbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you”, is not confined to defensive jihad. In the story of the Prophet Solomon (A), mentioned in Surat al Nahl, Solomon threatens the polytheists of Sheba with these words:

فَلَنَأۡتِيَنَّهُم بِجُنُودٍ۬ لَّا قِبَلَ لَهُم بِہَا وَلَنُخۡرِجَنَّہُم مِّنۡہَآ أَذِلَّةً۬ وَهُمۡ صَـٰغِرُونَ

....so we will most certainly come to them with hosts which they shall have no power to resist, and we shall expel them from there, abased and utterly humbled. (27:37)

In this case there existed no aggression or provocation. Solomon's threat is in response to the un-acceptance of his invitation to mono­theism addressed in his letter to the Queen of Sheba. Therefore, this Qur’anic story indicates the lawfulness of starting war against unbelievers.

 

So far you have only provided your opinion, you have yet to show me Shia sources/literature saying we only have defensive jihad, as per your original comment I replied to.

I am not sure if you genuinely believe this or whether you are sugar coating things which may appear negative to non-Muslims. I mean slavery is technically not absolutely abolished in fiqh, you wouldn't say that is not part of Islam either right?

Edited by Propaganda_of_the_Deed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Propaganda_of_the_Deed thanks good argument again masha Allah. But to me it does not specify "first", as this verse can easily be in reference to people they are at war with already. It is open and not specifying who starts, unlike the other verses that do. So I go with the specific verses that point towards the defensive rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as offensive Jihad. It's shameful this is being advocated. Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) isn't going to bend very clear and established principles for anyone.

Quit twisting Quranic verses to promote this sick idea.

 

Edited by Fink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fink said:

There is no such thing as offensive Jihad. It's shameful this is being advocated. Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) isn't going to bend very clear and established principles for anyone.

Quit twisting Quranic verses to promote this sick idea.

 

Again, you can refer to the link, I am not "twisting" anything. For someone who describes themself as a Quranist, you sure come off as selective 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

Again, you can refer to the link, I am not "twisting" anything. For someone who describes themself as a Quranist, you sure come off as selective 

The Qur'an needs to be understood collectively. Tell me when these offensive Jihads occured that the Qur'an orders Muslims to lead?? These are words given to the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) , give us examples of his offensive jihads since according to you Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) orders him to do so?

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...