Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

What did the imams think of Abu Bakr's Ridda wars?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Asalamulaikum,

The Sunni narrative surrounding the Ridda wars is that a few tribes rejected zakat as a pillar of Islam and thus were declared apostates and for that reason Abu Bakr's fighting them was justified.

A few Shia scholars (eg. Ammar Nakshawani, Yassir Habib, etc.) have argued that these tribes didn't reject zakat as a pillar, but rather refused to pay zakat specifically to Abu Bakr given they didn't recognise the legitimacy of his caliphate, and thus it was not appropriate of Abu Bakr to do takfir on them nor was it justified to kill them even if they rejected zakat as a pillar much less refused Abu Bakr by refusing zakat. These scholars go so far as to claim these were the first terrorist attacks in the history of Islam.

However, many Shia sources suggest the Imams did not oppose the Ridda wars...

imam Jafar al-Sadiq (عليه السلام) prescribes the death sentence for anyone who refuses zakat: Al-Kafi vol. 3 – The Book Of Zakah ch. 2: https://ibb.co/R9Zr9rS 

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) approving of Abu Bakr's Ridda wars: https://ibb.co/MpQ52D0 

There's much contradiction about zakat and the Ridda wars and was hoping for some clarity. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A last thing I will mention - nobody speaks about the worlds largest Muslim population: Indonesia. This was not spread by the sword. As a matter of fact, the Mongols converted to Islam sometime after

There were actually commentators and scholars within the ahl us sunnah as well who were pointing this out at the time for different reasons. Unfortunately I can't find back the clip, but there wa

Salaam,  Please provide a detailed account of these hadith along with their authentication status. Zakat is not paid to a Taghut (An illegitimate authority). This is from Fadak in Histo

  • Advanced Member
Quote

Other Conquests of Abu Bakr

The Apostle of God had appointed one Ziad bin Labeed as governor of Hadrmaut and Kinda. When he died, a certain Ash'ath bin Qays rose in rebellion against the government of Medina which now was headed by Abu Bakr. The latter sent his general, Ikrima bin Abu Jahl, to restore his authority in South Arabia. Ikrima defeated Ash'ath, captured him and sent him as a prisoner to Medina. Ash'ath asked for pardon. Abu Bakr not only pardoned him but also gave his sister in marriage to him.

In Bahrain, the tribes of Banu Bakr and Banu Abdul-Qays had refused to pay taxes. Punitive action was taken against them, and they were compelled to pay their taxes.

These campaigns are known in history by the generic name of the “Ridda” wars.

Abu Bakr spent full one year in fighting against the Ahl-er-Ridda and the false Prophets. At year's end all of them had been reduced to submission, and his authority was established in the country. However, at the successful termination of these campaigns, he did not want his troops to be idle; he sent them to invade the neighboring countries of Syria and Persia.

https://www.al-islam.org/restatement-history-islam-and-muslims-sayyid-ali-ashgar-razwy/principal-events-caliphate-abu-bakr#first-civil-war-islam

 

Seems like there were multiple regions and multiple tribes, looks like there was a false prophet involved as well.  Anyways you can always use A reinstatement in the history of Islam to search all your historical questions. 

Edited by pakistanyar
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/9/2020 at 5:16 PM, zahralzu said:

imam Jafar al-Sadiq (عليه السلام) prescribes the death sentence for anyone who refuses zakat: Al-Kafi vol. 3 – The Book Of Zakah ch. 2: https://ibb.co/R9Zr9rS 

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) approving of Abu Bakr's Ridda wars: https://ibb.co/MpQ52D0 

There's much contradiction about zakat and the Ridda wars and was hoping for some clarity. 

Firstly, one must provide the authentication of such traditions before attributing it to any of the Imams(عليه السلام)

Secondly, If the Imam(عليه السلام) really said that, then it would not mean that they support Abu Bakr, because Zakah to a illigemate leader is forbidden, so in no way did they approve of the Ridda Wars

Lastly, when these scholars speak of the first terrorist acts of Islam, they are speaking about the injustices done against those who didn't pay the tax, for example Khalid b. Walid and Malik b. Nuwayra

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/10/2020 at 4:46 AM, zahralzu said:

imam Jafar al-Sadiq (عليه السلام) prescribes the death sentence for anyone who refuses zakat: Al-Kafi vol. 3 – The Book Of Zakah ch. 2: https://ibb.co/R9Zr9rS 

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) approving of Abu Bakr's Ridda wars: https://ibb.co/MpQ52D0 

Salaam, 

Please provide a detailed account of these hadith along with their authentication status.

Zakat is not paid to a Taghut (An illegitimate authority).

This is from Fadak in History (Analysis of the Situation in the Case of Saqeefa) by Ayatullah Shaheed Muhammed Baqir al Sadr (رضي الله عنه) :

Quote

The rulers were indifferent to the opposition of the Umayyads and to the threat of Abu Sufyan and his words of revolt after he came back from his travel, to which the Prophet had sent him to collect the taxes, because they (the rulers) knew well about the nature of the Umayyads’ psychology and their tendency to authority and wealth. It was easy for the rulers to get the Umayyads to their side as Abu Bakr did. He permitted himself or-most correctly-Omar permitted him, as it was mentioned,[1] to grant Abu Sufyan all that was there in his hands of the Muslims’ wealth and zakat.[2]

 

When such is the ruler that he grants zakat as a bribe to his supposed threat so that they sit quiet and support him then how can Imams (عليه السلام) approve of his Ridda wars.

Edited by Zainuu
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Those who were declared apostates, among them was Malik bin Nuwerah, a companion whom Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) appointed as an officer over the clan of Bani Handhalah. His main responsibility was the collection of taxes and their despatch to Madinah.

After the demise of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), Malik refused to give allegiance to Abu Bakr. 

Some sources say that Malik stance was that he will pay the zakat only to the one who was nominated by Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) at Ghadeer. 

What happened with him & his wife and his whole tribe can be cited in history books. He was the first Muslim who was beheaded after accused of apostasy. Khalid bin Walid raped his wife by marrying her immediately after killing Malik, hence denied the widow her right of iddah (waiting period). 

It is also said that Abu Bakr paid the blood money to his brother:

Quote

Al-Tabari said that when the army of Khalid arrived at the place of the tribe and called for war, the people of Bani Yarbu' armed themselves. Soldiers of Khalid asked them, "we are Muslims, why did you arm yourselves?" They said, "We are Muslims too, why are you armed?" So, people of the tribe put down their arms, but Khalid decided to kill Malik with the excuse that he did not accept Abu Bakr's caliphate. So, he ordered Dirar b. Azur to behead him, as Malik told his beautiful wife, "you made me killed" meaning that Khalid was captivated by you and is going to kill me to seize you."

It happened as he said. Khalid killed him and immediately captured his wife. Abu Qutada and 'Abd Allah b. 'Umar objected to him, but he ignored them. Upon his return to Medina, before Khalid entered the city, Abu Qutada informed the caliph about the story, but when Khalid entered Medina, armed himself to the teeth and decorated his turban with three arrows as a sign of victory. 'Umar saw him on the way, took out the arrows out of his turban, broke them and told him, "how hypocrite you are! You kill a Muslim, make intercourse with his wife and call yourself a Muslim hero?! By God, I will stone you."

Khalid did not say anything and moved on until he met the caliph and reported his story in a way that he liked. When he left Abu Bakr, 'Umar went to the caliph and objected. Abu Bakr answered, "Khalid made a judgement, but he made a mistake in his judgement and for that we will not sheathe the sword of Islam." He then ordered to free the captives and paid the blood money for Malik from the public treasury. It is reported that when Mutammim, Malik's brother went to Abu Bakr and called the revenge for his brother and asked for the captives, Abu Bakr ordered to pay him the blood money and return the captives to him.

Abu Bakr was so ignorant that he ordered Khalid to divorce the widow of Malik. When was his nikah with her legitimate that he ordered him to divorce her!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
36 minutes ago, Cool said:

 

Abu Bakr was so ignorant that he ordered Khalid to divorce the widow of Malik. When was his nikah with her legitimate that he ordered him to divorce her!

The idaa period is for Muslims under Sharia law. If they were regarded as apostates and the war was legitimate then she was counted among spoils of war right ?

Edited by Warilla
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, Warilla said:

The idaa period is for Muslims under Sharia law. If they were regarded as apostates and the war was legitimate then she was counted among spoils of war right ?

If she was counted as apostate, how was a nikah with here legitimate in the first place? Nikah is only with legitimate with Muslims and Ahle Kitab, no?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Warilla said:

On a side note take any western democracy and refuse to pay tax. Just see how quick they are to punish you.

Yeah right. Even when the empires grabbed the lands and enforced taxes, no one opposed them. Though they were illegitimate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
27 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

If she was counted as apostate, how was a nikah with here legitimate in the first place? Nikah is only with legitimate with Muslims and Ahle Kitab, no?

Not sure on the spoils of war ruling ? They count as what your right hand posses.

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

Not sure on the spoils of war ruling ? They count as what your right hand posses.

If she comes under that heading, then why did the first caliph order a divorce? There is no nikah and divorce in the case of concubines and slaves, if I'm not wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
13 minutes ago, Warilla said:

If they were regarded as apostates and the war was legitimate then she was counted among spoils of war right ?

The one (Khalid bin Waleed) who regarded them apostates  & ordered beheading, have ignored the testimonies of companions who witnessed them pronouncing adhan and offering salah.

Quote

Abdulrazaq – Mu’amar – al Zuhari –from- Aba Qutadah said: During Reda (days), we marched to Ahl Abyaat and reached there at sunset, then we raised our spears, hence they asked: ‘Who are you?’ We replied: ‘We are slaves of Allah.’ They said: ‘We are slaves of Allah too.’ Then Khalid arrested them and when it was morning he ordered their beheading. Then I said: ‘Oh Khalid! Fear Allah, this is not allowed for you.’ He (Khalid) replied: ‘Stay (back); this is not your business.’ Then Abu Qutadah swore by Allah never to march with Khalid for any war. Qutadah said:‘The desert Arabs encouraged him (Khalid) on killing them for the sake of booties and that was Malik bin Nuwayrah’s case.’
Al-Musanaf, Volume 10 page 174 Tradition 18721

There is another narration:

Quote

Ali bin Muhammad – Abi Daeb – al-Zuhari – Salim – his father that he said: Abu Qutada came to Abu Bakr and informed him of the murder of Malik and his companions, hence he (Abu Bakr) became extremely aggrieved. Abu Bakr then wrote (a message) to Khalid, and he (Khalid) came to him. Abu Bakr said: ‘Can it be more than Khalid interpreted and made a mistake? Then Abu Bakr sent Khalid back and paid blood money for Malik bin Nuwayrah and returned the booty.
Tarikh Ibn Asakir, Volume 16 page 254

Abu Ghalib al-Bana and Abu Abdillah al-Bana narrated from Abu Jaffar bin Maslama from Abu Tahir al-Mukhalis from Ahmad bin Sulaiman from al-Zubair bin Bakr from Mus’ab bin Abdullah, who said:….Umar said: ‘I admonished Khalid for breaking the orders and for what he did with the money., Khalid would distribute the booty amongst the soldiers without informing Abu Bakr. He made decisions that contravened those of Abu Bakr, he killed Malik bin Nuwayra and married his wife. He made peace with the people of Yamama and married the daughter of Maj’a bin Marara. These were met with disapproval by Abu Bakr and he issued Diyat (blood money) to Mutammim bin Nuwayrah and ordered Khalid to divorce Malik’s wife….’
Tarikh Ibn Asakir, Volume 16 page 274

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Here is more:

Kanz ul Ummal, Volume 5 page 619 Tradition 14091:

Ibn Abi Aun and others narrated that Khalid bin al-Walid claimed that Malik bin Nuwayrah had become Murtad according to the information that he (Khalid) had received. Malik denied this and said: ‘I am a Muslim, I never changed.’ Abu Qutada and Abdullah ibn Umar testified that (Malik is Muslim) but Khalid ordered Dharar bin Al-Auzwar to behead him (Malik). Then Khalid took his (Malik’s) wife. (Umar) said to Abu Bakr: ‘He (Khalid) has performed adultery, you have to stone him’. Abu Bakr said: ‘I can’t stone him; he interpreted hence made a mistake’. (Umar) said: ‘Then dismiss him’. He (Abu Bakr) said: ‘I cannot put the sword back in the sheath which Allah has pulled out on my opponents.’(Ibn Sa’ad).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

What was the actual problem with Malik bin Nuwerah?

Quote

When Allah’s Messenger died and Bani Tamim (tribe) returned to Madina with Malik bin Nuwaira being with them, he went to see as to who became the successor after Allah’s messenger, he entered the mosque on Friday and Abu Bakr was giving an address on the pulpit. He (Malik) looked at him and said: ‘Oh brother of Taim’. (Abu Bakr) said: ‘Yes’. He (Malik) said: ‘Where is the Wasi of Allah’s messenger, who ordered I was ordered to follow?’ They (people) said: ‘Oh you desert Arab, things have changed.’ (Malik) said: ‘By Allah, nothing has changed, but you betrayed Allah and His messenger.’ Then he (Malik) got closer to Abu Bakr and said: ‘Who allowed you to climb onto the pulpit while the Wasi of Allah’s Messenger is here?’. Abu Bakr said: ‘Throw out this desert Arabian who urinates on his heels from Allah’s Messenger mosque.’ Qunfud and Khalid bin al-Walid went to him and kept pushing him until they removed him from the mosque.

Then he (Malik) rode on his camel and said (poem): ‘We obeyed Allah’s messenger as long he was amongst us, Oh people, what I have to do with Abu Bakr….’ When every thing was under Abu Bakr’s control, he sent Khalid bin al-Walid and said to him: ‘You heard what Malik said in front of the people, I’m worried that he would cause a crack we wont be able to fix. Kill him.

Ibn Shazan records in Al-Fadael, page 75

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
31 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

If she comes under that heading, then why did the first caliph order a divorce? There is no nikah and divorce in the case of concubines and slaves, if I'm not wrong.

I'm not sure. What you said makes sense though. They should have just asked Imam Ali to avoid all the confusion lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
29 minutes ago, Cool said:

, have ignored the testimonies of companions who witnessed them pronouncing adhan and offering salah.

You can pronounce adhan and offer slat and still apostate.

If I was under Sharia and suddenly became ahmadi. Would my adhan and salat matter ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
10 minutes ago, Warilla said:

If I was under Sharia and suddenly became ahmadi. Would my adhan and salat matter ?

Was that the case of Malik? No, he believed in Allah & his Apostle. He refused Abu Bakr's caliphate and that is the only reason for declaring him Apostate:

29 minutes ago, Cool said:

Then he (Malik) rode on his camel and said (poem): ‘We obeyed Allah’s messenger as long he was amongst us, Oh people, what I have to do with Abu Bakr….’ When every thing was under Abu Bakr’s control, he sent Khalid bin al-Walid and said to him: ‘You heard what Malik said in front of the people, I’m worried that he would cause a crack we wont be able to fix. Kill him.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
53 minutes ago, Cool said:

Was that the case of Malik? No, he believed in Allah & his Apostle. He refused Abu Bakr's caliphate and that is the only reason for declaring him Apostate:

 

This goes back to the original question. He if he refused to pay zakat he may well have apostated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/9/2020 at 6:16 PM, zahralzu said:

Asalamulaikum,

The Sunni narrative surrounding the Ridda wars is that a few tribes rejected zakat as a pillar of Islam and thus were declared apostates and for that reason Abu Bakr's fighting them was justified.

A few Shia scholars (eg. Ammar Nakshawani, Yassir Habib, etc.) have argued that these tribes didn't reject zakat as a pillar, but rather refused to pay zakat specifically to Abu Bakr given they didn't recognise the legitimacy of his caliphate, and thus it was not appropriate of Abu Bakr to do takfir on them nor was it justified to kill them even if they rejected zakat as a pillar much less refused Abu Bakr by refusing zakat. These scholars go so far as to claim these were the first terrorist attacks in the history of Islam.

However, many Shia sources suggest the Imams did not oppose the Ridda wars...

imam Jafar al-Sadiq (عليه السلام) prescribes the death sentence for anyone who refuses zakat: Al-Kafi vol. 3 – The Book Of Zakah ch. 2: https://ibb.co/R9Zr9rS 

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) approving of Abu Bakr's Ridda wars: https://ibb.co/MpQ52D0 

There's much contradiction about zakat and the Ridda wars and was hoping for some clarity. 

Sister,

Ammar Nakhshawani (and those other guys you mentioned)... should not be taken seriously.  I don't want to say anything more.   When ISIS was the news of the day, Ammar Nakhshawani found this to be an opportunity to BASH Sunni Islam.  If you BASH Sunni Islam, you BASH Islam.  Only stupid people accepted whatever he uttered on those days from the mimbar.  He tried to prove that seeds of ISIS were the sown by Sunni Islam.  

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/20/2020 at 11:29 PM, Zainuu said:

Salaam, 

Please provide a detailed account of these hadith along with their authentication status.

Zakat is not paid to a Taghut (An illegitimate authority).

This is from Fadak in History (Analysis of the Situation in the Case of Saqeefa) by Ayatullah Shaheed Muhammed Baqir al Sadr (رضي الله عنه) :

When such is the ruler that he grants zakat as a bribe to his supposed threat so that they sit quiet and support him then how can Imams (عليه السلام) approve of his Ridda wars.

bear in mind,  you are basing all your conclusions on the premise that Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) was illegitimate or was not supposed to be a caliph... etc etc

The most amazing and interesting part of history were these wars I would say.  It showed the corporation of all the sahaba!  They supported each other in these wars!  Imam Ali (عليه السلام) didn't want Umar (رضي الله عنه) to fight in the front lines of any these wars as he didn't want him (i.e. Umar (ra)) the Caliph of the time to die prematurely).  Why would Imam Ali (عليه السلام) care to save his life if Umar (رضي الله عنه) was a munafiq and an illigitimate corrupt leader?  Shias know this about the Ridda wars, scholars accept this.  I even read this in a Shia madressa book.  Students (young boys and girls) are taught this in Shia madressas for crying out loud (because it is an undeniable and indisputable fact!)

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, Cool said:

Was that the case of Malik? No, he believed in Allah & his Apostle. He refused Abu Bakr's caliphate and that is the only reason for declaring him Apostate:

 

please read this report that sunnis use to justify what happened to malik (apparently followed a false prophet thus apostated) and let me know what u think!

https://ibb.co/sw8gv5L 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

Why would Imam Ali (عليه السلام) care to save his life if Umar (رضي الله عنه) was a munafiq and an illigitimate corrupt leader?

Salaam brother, 

Interesting question. Answer to this question is also the answer to another question which why Imam Ali (عليه السلام) didn't revolt against Abu Bakr's Caliphate? 

Reason:

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) did this for the sake of the Ummah. In anyway, if he would have revolted, the nation of Islam would have broken down completely. Their were many power seekers. If yoi know the case of Saqeefa, the ansars held that meeting and wanted power, if you see how Abu Sufyan reacted, you would understand he needed power. 

So, though illegitimate but a stable government of Abu Bakr and the possible consequences of any revolt —that would have led to a huge bloodshed for power struggle— became the reasons for Imam Ali's silence. How would a righteous vicegerent of the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) — who slept himself on the bed of The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) to save him and put his own life on stake — accept this bloodshed?

Mawla Ali (عليه السلام) never did anything except for the sake of Allah, this is said by The Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)in khayber (Tomorrow I will give flag in the hand of the one who will not return until victory, He loves Allah and his messenger and Allah and his messenger loves him) and many places. 

Same goes with your question. This advice is present in Nahj ul Balagha. It is clear from the context only, Umar came to take advice from Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and he gave him an advice. It is also the seerah of the Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) that they act kindly towards someone who seeks their help, doesn't matter if he is their enemy. So, Mawla gave the advice to Umar to stay and not go to the war. He said that if you are killed, then everything will be scattered. 

This was clearly for the sake of Ummah if you read it. Umar, good or bad, was a leader at that time. And if he would have got killed in the war, the Ummah would have scattered. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was not some selfish and mean person who would advice anyone to die because he is in conflicts with that person. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
3 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

He tried to prove that seeds of ISIS were the sown by Sunni Islam.  

There were actually commentators and scholars within the ahl us sunnah as well who were pointing this out at the time for different reasons.

Unfortunately I can't find back the clip, but there was a commentator on Egyptian television who was essentially disputing the popular claim that 'daesh are not muslims' by explaining that many aspects of the IS could be traced back to early islamic history.

Then you had saudi clerics confirming that the capture and slavery of the women, followed by intercourse with them, was permissible. 

The point is not that sunnis endorse daesh, obviously most of them don't, but rather that they didn't exactly do much that hadn't already been done during previous caliphates. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, zahralzu said:

please read this report that sunnis use to justify what happened to malik (apparently followed a false prophet thus apostated) and let me know what u think!

https://ibb.co/sw8gv5L 

Well, why the Abu Bakr paid the blood money to the brother of Malik bin Nuweyrah? There is no ديه  for apostates.

Why then he ordered Khalid to divorce the wife of Malik? 

Why Umar accused Khalid of adultery?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I'd just like to add, the reason he didn't revolt isn't because of some secret Jedi code no one knows about.

He did consider revolting, he just didn't have a critical mass of supporters (40 in most traditions) that would make his revolt bear positive results. He was acting on the instructions that the Holy Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).s) gave him in his lifetime.

Imam Jafar was once asked why he didn't revolt; he said he would even if he had 20 absolutely obedient supporters. I'm not posting the tradition here or the thread will be derailed.

@Warillabro, If I'm not mistaken, the Zaydi position is that since the just imams didn't revolt against them, the caliphs had some degree of legitimacy. Right? (not looking to debate this point, just want to see if I'm familiar with Zaydi thought.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
6 minutes ago, Mahdavist said:

There were actually commentators and scholars within the ahl us sunnah as well who were pointing this out at the time for different reasons.

Unfortunately I can't find back the clip, but there was a commentator on Egyptian television who was essentially disputing the popular claim that 'daesh are not muslims' by explaining that many aspects of the IS could be traced back to early islamic history.

Then you had saudi clerics confirming that the capture and slavery of the women, followed by intercourse with them, was permissible. 

The point is not that sunnis endorse daesh, obviously most of them don't, but rather that they didn't exactly do much that hadn't already been done during previous caliphates. 

“The Impossible State” by Wael hallaq

is enough to disprove such nonsense.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
2 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

The Impossible State” by Wael hallaq

is enough to disprove such nonsense

You can't disprove something that already happened. 

The author , and many others, can argue that the concept of 'islamic state' or modern day 'caliphate' is baseless. 

What they can't erase is the fact that a lot of what took place was simply a repetition of early day caliphates. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

Sister,

Ammar Nakhshawani (and those other guys you mentioned)... should not be taken seriously.  I don't want to say anything more.   When ISIS was the news of the day, Ammar Nakhshawani found this to be an opportunity to BASH Sunni Islam.  If you BASH Sunni Islam, you BASH Islam.  Only stupid people accepted whatever he uttered on those days from the mimbar.  He tried to prove that seeds of ISIS were the sown by Sunni Islam.  

of course i'd never claim that isis is muslim or that isis has any place in islam weather sunni or not, but i also don't think this was ammar's motive either, rather, he was trying to get to the root of where all this terrorism began...i see many people blaming america/isreal but that' nonsense because terrorist ideologies existed way before isis; america didn't "make" isis, it just funded a pre-existing ideology, so you're gonna need to move rewind, rewind to where? ibn abd al-wahab? that's also too recent and terrorism existed way before, so move back, to khawarij? unlikely, to muwayiah crucifying shia? also too recent, the furthest you can go back is to saqifa, otherwise you go back to the prophet and the quran which is basically committing kufr if you say this is where terrorism stems from. by the looks of it, too many sunnis are indeed justifying saqifa and ridda wars and burning of the house of fatima as "misunderstandings" and sweeping them under the rug; but you must be ready to either out the saqifa authority or the prophet's...what was the first terrorist attack in all of muslim history? where did all this terrorism come from? i know this wasn't what the question initially started out as but it now seems to be heading in this direction as the 'truth' is made clearer; that islam was corrupted the minute the prophet was martyred, and not centuries later...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Just now, Mahdavist said:

You can't disprove something that already happened. 

The author , and many others, can argue that the concept of 'islamic state' or modern day 'caliphate' is baseless. 

What they can't erase is the fact that a lot of what took place was simply a repetition of early day caliphates. 

No.  The early caliphs were not trying to establish an Islamic State!  
again, ISIS is a politicized version of Islam.  The early Caliphs did not see Islam as a political movement.  It was simply the spark of divine revelation that spread like lightning.  It was not deliberated, it was organic.  The Prophet (S) said To Salma Farsi and other Companions during The Battle of the Trench:   Sham, Damascus, and Persia will be ours.  And it was a prophecy because it was meant to happen!  It is part of the organic expansion of Islam.  The Caliphs didn’t see any of this as THeIR own will but simply the unfolding of God’s decree and promise.  
 

how dare anyone compare that with ISIS?  Just because ISIS misunderstands Islam and its function does not mean that Islam is the cause of ISIS.  
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
7 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

Because it didn’t happen.  That is my point!

Khalid ibn Walid didn't go around killing anyone who didn't pay the zakat to the caliph?

He didn't consider their women legal for himself?

Here's another question, why is al Baghdadi's caliphate less valid than any other previous caliphate? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
13 minutes ago, Mahdavist said:

Khalid ibn Walid didn't go around killing anyone who didn't pay the zakat to the caliph?

Yes he did by orders of Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه).  if one didn’t pay the zakat or the jizya it was serious for it meant that one was an enemy to Islam.  This is not a political movement as much as you would like to think so.  And “the impossible state” proves this!  

Quote

He didn't consider their women legal for himself?

You mean possession of the right hand?  Female slavery?  You really want to get into this discussion?  

Quote

Here's another question, why is al Baghdadi's caliphate less valid than any other previous caliphate? 

Because one is trying to establish an Islamic State, the other isn’t?  ???  
i already answered this before.  

Edited by eThErEaL
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...