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
Ejaz

Can we (or infallibles (عليه السلام)) force polytheists (mushriks) to convert by the sword?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

First of all, there is no Quranic Arabic word for "polytheism" in the Quran.  (at least not that I am aware of).  Mind showing me?  (and please don't tell me you have in mind the Arabic word "shirk" and "mushrik".  Because that isn't polytheism.  

Secondly, which "religions" would you classify under "polytheism"?  Do you imagine some of them in the list I have given you in the previous post are?  Well none of them are.  FYI.  

Thirdly, you are unaware of Islamic History especially of the meetings between Hindus and Muslims in India and the interactions between Muslims and Confucians in China and other interactions between Muslims and Buddhists.   

 

But if the interpretation of Hinduism that they believe in many gods is correct then they can’t be dhimmi (or if their religion is not from god)..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you dear brothers/ sisters for your responses
So what I have understood is that some scholars say only infallible can force the mushrikin to convert with jihad after showing clear proofs (which makes a bit sense to me). Other scholars say not just an infallible can force the mushrikin after debates etc. (which makes less sense to me).

Edited by Ejaz

Share this post


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

Salam is there any punishment if they (Dhimmi) spread their belief?

Yes but degree of it different in various situation.

Share this post


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

First of all, there is no Quranic Arabic word for "polytheism" in the Quran.  (at least not that I am aware of).  Mind showing me?  (and please don't tell me you have in mind the Arabic word "shirk" and "mushrik".  Because that isn't polytheism.  

Secondly, which "religions" would you classify under "polytheism"?  Do you imagine some of them in the list I have given you in the previous post are?  Well none of them are.  FYI.  

Thirdly, you are unaware of Islamic History especially of the meetings between Hindus and Muslims in India and the interactions between Muslims and Confucians in China and other interactions between Muslims and Buddhists.   

 

Firstly every religion which are not part of ahl hul Kitab are not permitted to profess under an Islamic government weither they are polytheists or not. That include Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Animism, Sikhism etc. 

Secondly, what happened in history is not an argument. That could be even dangerous. I see many non-Muslims and sometimes even Muslims unfortunately claiming that homosexuality should be accepted because indeed in some Muslim societies some "Khalifa" were homosexuals and/or society was relatively passive toward it. However Islamic theologians never disagreed on the fact that homosexuality was haram. Also I would say that your exemples about India and China are irrelevants or even bad exemples. Irrelevant because in China Muslims never controlled this country (excepted Xinjiang were Muslims forced Buddhist to convert to Islam) and bad example because in the case of India Muslim rulers were in front of billion of Hindus and were forced to be Pragamtic toward them. Also sometimes Indian Muslim rulers were very laxist toward Islamic rules and married hindu women (which is haram for remember) or even heretics (one even funded a new religion) and many of them tried to follow Islam and just forced many Hindus to become Muslims by destroying their temples. 

Share this post


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

it's not about the thoughts of the 'theologians', their thoughts/opinions are not required in a complete matter.

If you want to follow your own interpretation instead of scholars who know Arabic and studied religion for decades that is your choice but not mine. 

Share this post


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

thank you dear brothers/ sisters for your responses
So what I have understood is that some scholars say only infallible can force the mushrikin to convert with jihad after showing clear proofs (which makes a bit sense to me). Other scholars say not just an infallible can force the mushrikin after debates etc. (which makes less sense to me).

Well imagine that some religions required human sacrifices, weird sexual practices, racist speeches or have a very sectarian tendency. 

Do you need an infaillible to understand that such things can't be permitted? 

Share this post


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

But if the interpretation of Hinduism that they believe in many gods is correct then they can’t be dhimmi (or if their religion is not from god)..

Weither they believe in one god or different gods they are not considered as ahl hul Kitab. 

Share this post


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

Well imagine that some religions required human sacrifices, weird sexual practices, racist speeches or have a very sectarian tendency. 

Do you need an infaillible to understand that such things can't be permitted? 

What do you mean brother? I am saying that I agree with those (Majority?) ulema who say only infallible can force mushriks from different countries after showing them clear signs like what Imam Mahdi (عليه السلام). might do or like what brother @Ashvazdanghe has said.

But the other ulema who believe that the Faqih has right to do this (Force them to convert and do jihad) I don’t think my heart agrees (or brain). But these practices can’t permitted in Islamic country of course! And we can give advice to those countries with human sacrifice that this is wrong.

Share this post


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

What do you mean brother? I am saying that I agree with those (Majority?) ulema who say only infallible can force mushriks from different countries after showing them clear signs like what Imam Mahdi (عليه السلام). might do or like what brother @Ashvazdanghe has said.

But the other ulema who believe that the Faqih has right to do this (Force them to convert and do jihad) I don’t think my heart agrees (or brain). But these practices can’t permitted in Islamic country of course! And we can give advice to those countries with human sacrifice that this is wrong.

I just meant that some religions are dangerous or weird and we don't need an infaillible imam to understand that we can't tolerate them. 

Do you understand better? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ejaz said:

What do you mean brother? I am saying that I agree with those (Majority?) ulema who say only infallible can force mushriks from different countries after showing them clear signs like what Imam Mahdi (عليه السلام). might do or like what brother @Ashvazdanghe has said.

But the other ulema who believe that the Faqih has right to do this (Force them to convert and do jihad) I don’t think my heart agrees (or brain). But these practices can’t permitted in Islamic country of course! And we can give advice to those countries with human sacrifice that this is wrong.

I am maybe wrong but don't most ulema are for converting them by force in the case of an Islamic state? 

Share this post


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

I am maybe wrong but don't most ulema are for converting them by force in the case of an Islamic state? 

Not sure but I was talking about outside Islamic state not inside. I think most ulema only say infallible can convert them outside Islamic state and expand Islam. I agree with this because they will be shown clear signs by Imam so it makes sense. 

But even in Islamic state I have difficulty understanding why everyone should be Muslim or ahlekitab. But if they are dangerous or have weird satanic sexual practices I understand.

10 minutes ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

I just meant that some religions are dangerous or weird and we don't need an infaillible imam to understand that we can't tolerate them. 

Do you understand better? 

What do you mean tolerate? What do you mean “we”? You mean in Islamic state? Sorry I’m confused.

Edited by Ejaz

Share this post


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


But even in Islamic state I have difficulty understanding why everyone should be Muslim or ahlekitab. But if they are dangerous or have weird satanic sexual practices I understand.

What do you mean tolerate? What do you mean “we”? You mean in Islamic state? Sorry I’m confused.

Yes I mean in an Islamic state. 

For exemple if we take the exemple of the US. They have religion which are openly white or black supremacists (so racists) are we supposed to tolerate that? There are religions which say that we can't take medicines so because of that many followers of such religion die, are we supposed to allow that? Etc etc. 

Most countries in reality have some limits toward "freedom of religion" while some go to far (USA actually is a good exemple of this to my opinion). 

But what are supposed to be the limit then? 

Islam teach us that the limits are Islam and alh hul Kitab. Others are not to be tolerated because they are just too wrongs, or too far from Islamic doctrines and principles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mohammadi_follower

Ok I understand what you are saying now, you are talking about inside an Islamic country. 
But what if the religion is not harming anyone and they are keeping to themselves? Are we to force them to convert by the sword (my original question) or leave their practices? Maybe like Buddhism or Jainism. 

If your answer is yes it doesn’t make sense to me at the moment.

Edited by Ejaz

Share this post


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

If you want to follow your own interpretation instead of scholars who know Arabic and studied religion for decades that is your choice but not mine. 

Do you think that when Imam Mahdi (عليه السلام) comes back he may refer to some of these religions as Ahlul Kitab that we didn’t know of?

Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) would have sent messengers to every people, but of course the original message would not be completely preserved.

Share this post


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

@Mohammadi_follower

Ok I understand what you are saying now, you are talking about inside an Islamic country. 
But what if the religion is not harming anyone and they are keeping to themselves? Are we to force them to convert by the sword (my original question) or leave their practices? Maybe like Buddhism or Jainism. 

If your answer is yes it doesn’t make sense to me at the moment.

If they are foreign citizens then this is their business and as long they don't do proselitysm this is not our business. 

If they are citizens of the country then they must convert to Islam (or maybe to other ahl hul Kitab religions I am not sure about that). 

 

Share this post


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

Do you think that when Imam Mahdi (عليه السلام) comes back he may refer to some of these religions as Ahlul Kitab that we didn’t know of?

Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) would have sent messengers to every people, but of course the original message would not be completely preserved.

This is out of my knowledges. But the few I know about Buddhism and jainism I see nothing close to Islam on it. 

Share this post


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

Salam meeting with them doesn't  mean recognizing them as Ahlul kitab that  clearly defined in holy Quran but muslims tried to do missionary works among them by interaction with them also they could travel as Dhimmis to Islamic countries to search for truth but they are not allow to spread their belief in an Islamic country.

Muslims back then were not blind as Muslims tend to be nowadays.  As soon as they saw Buddhists, Taoist, and Hindus, they immediately recognized that they originated from one of the 124000 prophets sent to mankind, they immediately saw it a testimony to the Quranic fact that “We sent to every nation a prophet to speak to them in their own tongue”.  
 

furthermore, one would have to be Utterly Ignorant to not see Buddhism and Hinduism and Taoism and Native American Religion as sacred and heavenly!

and yes, most people are not only ignorant of these religions but of their own religion.  

Share this post


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

Firstly every religion which are not part of ahl hul Kitab are not permitted to profess under an Islamic government weither they are polytheists or not. That include Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Animism, Sikhism etc. 

And why do you not put Buddhism and Hinduism, Taoism and Sikhism and Native Americans under the category of Ahlul Kitab?  

10 hours ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

Secondly, what happened in history is not an argument. That could be even dangerous.

It goes against the fact that you said “no where in Sunni Islam and Shia Islam is this the case”.  Ya rite!

 

10 hours ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

I see many non-Muslims and sometimes even Muslims unfortunately claiming that homosexuality should be accepted because indeed in some Muslim societies some "Khalifa" were homosexuals and/or society was relatively passive toward it. However Islamic theologians never disagreed on the fact that homosexuality was haram. Also I would say that your exemples about India and China are irrelevants or even bad exemples. Irrelevant because in China Muslims never controlled this country (excepted Xinjiang were Muslims forced Buddhist to convert to Islam) and bad example because in the case of India Muslim rulers were in front of billion of Hindus and were forced to be Pragamtic toward them. Also sometimes Indian Muslim rulers were very laxist toward Islamic rules and married hindu women (which is haram for remember) or even heretics (one even funded a new religion) and many of them tried to follow Islam and just forced many Hindus to become Muslims by destroying their temples. 

Yawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No you can not Mushriks to convert by the sword, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) says in the Quran,

:bismillah:

لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL

There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion.

2:256

So you or anyone else can't FORCE anyone to convert in anyway.

Hopefully this answers your question,

و صل الله على محمد و آل محمد

 

 

Share this post


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

And why do you not put Buddhism and Hinduism, Taoism and Sikhism and Native Americans under the category of Ahlul Kitab?  

It goes against the fact that you said “no where in Sunni Islam and Shia Islam is this the case”.  Ya rite!

 

 

Because these religions have nothing in common with Islam. 

Yes indeed nowhere in sunnis Islam and Shia Islam this is the case. This is not because some countries claimed to be sunnis or shias that they acted according to the rules of these religions. 

Share this post


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

And why do you not put Buddhism and Hinduism, Taoism and Sikhism and Native Americans under the category of Ahlul Kitab?  

Salam because  they are not mentioned  in holy Quran .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2020 at 2:33 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

truth

what is truth? 

is truth limited to Islamic countries?

what if they were the ones bringing it?

Share this post


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

@BowTie @Ansur Shiat Ali
salaam, do you have any commentary about the tafasir I posted in the original post and next post.

Do you know how many hadiths there is? Do they coincide with the Quran? Are they even logical? Hadiths are not proof to something these days.

Share this post


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

salaam, do you have any commentary about the tafasir I posted in the original post and next post.

Salam This is a verse that you really just see and know its meaning.

Edited by Ansur Shiat Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ejaz

What I mean when it says "There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion", you just look at the verse and know its meaning, it means you can't force someone to convert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam,

Does anyone know if Allama Tabataba’i and Shaheed Mutahhari are referring to an infallible doing this or are they referring to a Faqih. @eThErEaL @Ashvazdanghe @Flying_Eagle

Infallible makes sense to me:

Quote

Allama Tabataba’i says “Mushrikin: These are the ones who do not believe in Tawhid, Nubuwwah, and Ma'ad. This group should primarily be invited to embrace Islam. The facts of religion must be explained to them clearly in such a way that no ambiguity and excuse would remain. Then if they accept these truths, they will be considered as the brothers of other Muslims and equal to them in profits and losses. But if they refuse to accept the truth and reality after these are clearly explained to them, Islam will perform the religious duty of jihad against them.”

Shaheed Murtadha Mutahhari “We can, however, fight the polytheists in order to uproot evil from their society. Ridding a society of evil, polytheistic beliefs is one thing, while imposing the belief of tawhid is another.” And then he presents the opinion: “If, on the other hand, we consider tawhid to be a universal issue [right of the human being like freedom], one pertaining to the rights of humanity and one of the conditions for humanity's general welfare and prosperity, then we see it as permissible to commence war with the mushrikin for the sake of the demands and defense of tawhid. Such war is justifiable in order to uproot corruption, even though war for the sake of imposing the tawhidic3 belief is itself not permissible”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2020 at 5:37 AM, Mzwakhe said:

what is truth? 

is truth limited to Islamic countries?

what if they were the ones bringing it?

Salam  I mean learning about reality of Islam , so you can find it in both Islamic & non Islamic countries that finding it now is rare that  Imam Mahdi (aj) will show it to everyone & every country inshaAllah very soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Ejaz said:

Salaam,

Does anyone know if Allama Tabataba’i and Shaheed Mutahhari are referring to an infallible doing this or are they referring to a Faqih. @eThErEaL @Ashvazdanghe @Flying_Eagle

Infallible makes sense to me:

Ayotullah Tabatabi is said well that after exhausting all the pleas and questions of unbelievers, jihad can be invoked upon them. Thus, if an unbeliever asks you to show a miracle so that he believe, can you show him? If not then you have authority up to the extent of your capability and it's for Imam-e-Zamana to answer such question and for him to call for jihad in event of rejecting clear signs. 

Ayotullah Murtaza muthari adopt the approach of child not taking medicine. Albeit, I slightly and respectfully disagree with that because only the parents of child have the right to decide whether to give it medicine or not, and it's not for neighborers  to decide and give spoons at will. Imam-e-Zamana is made spiritual father of humanity by Allah so he has such authority, we can until then only spread the message and look at our own home. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Let us say, for example, that in an Islamic state there are atheists who do not believe in the monotheistic ideology (which is to believe in the Absolute One God). Here, it would not be the Islamic government’s responsibility to force them to believe. The unprecedented truth is that Islam is not intolerant to other people’s faiths. Rather, Islam aims to propagate individuals to take responsibility of their faith. Islam encourages them to follow logical arguments, to ponder and avoid blindly following one’s lowly desires and whims

@Mohammadi_follower this is the view of Ali Shomali

https://www.al-islam.org/message-thaqalayn/vol11-no-3-autumn-2010/religion-and-freedom-mohammad-ali-shomali/religion-and

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

“In fact, all Shi‘ite and most Sunni jurists, especially in modern times, believe that jihad is legitimate only as defense (difa‘i) and cannot be originated as aggression (ibtida’i). As far as Twelve-Imam Shi‘ism is concerned, throughout the centuries and including today, all the eminent authorities have asserted that jihad, except for defense, is haram, or forbidden, by Islamic Law in the absence of the ma‘s.um, that is, “the inerrant one” (or one who is impeccable in the etymological sense of this term), which in the context of Shi‘ite Islam means the Prophet and the Imams”
The Heart of Islam: Enduring Values For Humanity
Seyyed Hossein Nasr
 

Is it true that Seyyed Hossein Nasr is not including jurists who believe in Wilayat al Faqih (Faqih has authority for jihad al ibtida’i?)?

@Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam @Ejaz I think he doesn't  believe to "Wilayat al Faqih (Faqih has authority for jihad al ibtida’i?)?"  but he interrupts the Imam khomeini (رضي الله عنه) rulership  through Mulla Sadra & Farabi & Plato as " philosopher ruler" .

Quote

 

Question: Some believe that the root of the Islamic Revolution in Iran is Sadraism . What do you think about this?
The late Ayatollah Khomeini (رضي الله عنه) spent 50 years of his life studying and teaching Asfar [of Mulla Sadra] , the Futuhat Makia and Fusus al-Hakam of Ibn Arabi, and his interest was more in mysticism and wisdom, and at first he was less focused on jurisprudence. Of course, He later turned to politics, but in my opinion, His political activities were not just the application of transcendent wisdom [Hikmat Muta'liah of Sadra]   or Ibn Arabi Fusus al-Hakam. He tried to use the jurisprudence and practical aspects of Islam as well, and not to deal only with philosophical issues in politics, although he was never neglected  of Islamic philosophy in politics.

Of course, according to Plato, a desirable society is one in which the "philosopher sultan" is ruler and rules; That is, someone who is both a political leader and a philosopher should be at the head of the government. When Ayatollah Khomeini became the leader of Iran, a famous Japanese scholar named Toshihiko Izutsu wrote in an article that Ayatollah Khomeini is like the same sultan and king mentioned by Plato and Farabi. In fact, it is a return to a society in which is desirably perfect and ideal.

It should be remembered here that the Prophet of Islam ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) was both a perfect ruler and an irreplaceable sage man. The Messenger of Allah ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) was the ruler of  Arabic land and a model for the later rulers, and at the same time the source of wisdom and mysticism and the Lord of all kinds, the perfect combination of wisdom and government. In my opinion, it is very important that we do not equate the Lord of all things with His appearance in the material world in which we are, an issue that all religions face it in some way.

سوال: برخی معتقدند که ریشه انقلاب اسلامی ایران صدرایی است. نظر شما در این باره چیست؟

مرحوم آیت‌الله خمینی(ره) ۵۰ سال از عمرشان را صرف تحصیل و تدریس اسفار، فتوحات مکیه و فصوص‌الحکم ابن‌عربی کردند و علاقۀ ایشان بیشتر به عرفان و حکمت بود و در ابتدا کمتر روی فقه متمرکز بودند. البته بعدها به سیاست روی آوردند ولی به نظر بنده فعالیت‌های سیاسی ایشان فقط کاربرد حکمت متعالیه و یا فصوص‌الحکم ابن‌عربی نبود. ایشان سعی کردند که از جوانب فقهی و عملی اسلام نیز استفاده کنند نه اینکه در امر سیاست فقط به مسائل فلسفی بپردازند، گرچه هیچگاه در سیاست از توجه به فلسفۀ اسلامی غافل نبودند.

البته به عقیدۀ افلاطون جامعۀ مطلوب جامعه‌ای است که در آن «فیلسوف سلطان» حاکم باشد و حکومت کند؛ یعنی کسی که هم رهبر سیاسی و هم فیلسوف است در رأس حکومت قرار گیرد. وقتی آیت‌الله خمینی رهبر ایران شدند یکی از دانشمندان معروف ژاپنی به نام «توشی‌هیکو ایزوتسو» (Toshihiko Izutsu) در مقاله‌ای نوشت که آیت‌الله خمینی(ره) مانند همان سلطان و ملکی است که افلاطون و فارابی به آن اشاره کرده‌اند. در واقع، بازگشت به جامعه‌ای است که کمال مطلوب و ایده‌آل است. در اینجا باید به خاطر داشت که پیامبر اسلام(ص) هم حاکم کامل بود و هم حکیم بی بدیل. رسول خدا(ص) حاکم بر عربستان و الگویی برای حاکمان بعدی بود و در عین حال منشأ حکمت و عرفان و رب‌النوع تلفیق کامل حکمت و حکومت. به نظر بنده خیلی مهم است که رب‌النوع هر چیزی را با پدیدارش در این عالم مادی که ما در آن هستیم یکی ندانیم، مسأله‌ای که همه ادیان به نحوی با آن مواجه‌اند.

https://fa.shafaqna.com/news/684472/

 

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

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.


×
×
  • Create New...